# 1914-18 : The Great Slaughter - Challenging A Year Of Myth Making.



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 31, 2013)

At time of writing am considering ways to challenge any and all myth making at all levels of media. 

Obviously a blog and FB group are ideas, but would need big building, publicising and admin.

A twitter # of thegreatslaughter might be good for putting up facts.

Regular "On This Day" items about the politics and monitoring of establishment media items, documentaries, specials etc.

It's possible that there will be circumspection in MSM, but also possible that the main truths will be skated over : about the arms industry, nationalism, imperialism and related royals causing untold millions of deaths. Butcher Haig being on a £2 coin is not a good omen.

Please share ideas as well as facts of history/analysis on this thread.

Thank you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 31, 2013)

I've not much time online over the next few days, will be keen to read people's thoughts when I have the chance.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 31, 2013)

This is a solid seeming mainstream documentary series I've been watching. 

The first ep gives well presented backdrop to the before/after of the Ferdinand assassination.

That's my opinion any how, interested to hear critique:


----------



## JHE (Dec 31, 2013)

Myths?  What myths do you expect to be propagated?


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

Is this history being rewritten to suit the current regime?


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Some different opinions might be presented over the root causes of the First World War, but I don't think there will be a deliberate attempt to propogate myths in any conspiratorial way.  What makes you so certain that you have access to the 'the truth' about the war anyway?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

JHE said:


> Myths?  What myths do you expect to be propagated?


 
For a start, the myth that interests align around nationality rather than class i.e. that the interests of the British were opposed to the interests of the Germans. In reality, all the war offered working class people of either country was the chance to be slaughtered for an endeavour, the spoils of which they'd never receive. The interests of workers from both countries lay in peace; the interests of a tiny elite of capitalists lay in war.

The same idea is peddled today. Not only in respect of illegal wars, but in more subtle ways. Like the whole austerity drive; apparently, we're all in this together, and must all make sacrifices, now that times are hard. But, when the bankers who caused the crisis were doing well, it was every man for himself.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> Is this history being rewritten to suit the current regime?


 
Not rewritten. The mythology around WWI remains largely the same. But it was a lie then, and still is now


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Some different opinions might be presented over the root causes of the First World War, but I don't think there will be a deliberate attempt to propogate myths in any conspiratorial way.  What makes you so certain that you have to the 'the truth' about the war anyway?


 
The myths have been propogated for 100 years. What makes you think this year will be any different? You think there'll be a sudden acknowledgement that millions of deaths would have been prevented if working class men on both sides had refused to fight, and that the only people to lose out by that would have been the capitalists and empire builders? Or that, having 'won' the war, times were harder than ever for the men returning from the trenches, whilst, in the meantime, a few had made fortunes from it?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> The myths have been propogated for 100 years. What makes you think this year will be any different? You think there'll be a sudden acknowledgement that millions of deaths would have been prevented if working class men on both sides had refused to fight, and that the only people to lose out by that would have been the capitalists and empire builders? Or that, having 'won' the war, times were harder than ever for the men returning from the trenches, whilst, in the meantime, a few had made fortunes from it?



Can't let this thread go on too long without a link to Bourne's great essay.


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> For a start, the myth that interests align around nationality rather than class i.e. that the interests of the British were opposed to the interests of the Germans.snip.........



So you expect that events and media organised to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War will attempt to argue that the war shows that interests should be aligned along national lines. 

If anything as the video above posted by Taffboy shows, they will, if anything, argue the exact opposite.


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> The myths have been propogated for 100 years. What makes you think this year will be any different? You think there'll be a sudden acknowledgement that millions of deaths would have been prevented if working class men on both sides had refused to fight, and that the only people to lose out by that would have been the capitalists and empire builders? Or that, having 'won' the war, times were harder than ever for the men returning from the trenches, whilst, in the meantime, a few had made fortunes from it?



That if working class men on both sides had refused to fight there would have been bad consequences is not a myth that is being propogated by anybody at all now. Nobody.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> So you expect that events and media organised to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War will attempt to argue that the war shows that interests should be aligned along national lines.
> 
> If anything as the video above posted by Taffboy shows, they will, if anything, argue the exact opposite.


 
Yes, I expect the centenary will be used by the establishment (including mainstream media) to bolster a sense of patriotism, which encourages the belief that interests align on national rather than class bases.

There will, of course, be dissenting voices, but they'll be a minority.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> That if working class men on both sides had refused to fight there would have been bad consequences is not a myth that is being propogated by anybody at all now. Nobody.


 
What bad consequences?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> What bad consequences?



Unemployed headstone engravers?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> What bad consequences?


engravers?[/quote]

They could have got up to all manner of mischief in those smoky little rooms above pubs...


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

8ball said:


> They could have got up to all manner of mischief in those smoky little rooms above pubs...


 
A negative consequence for whom?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> Is this history being rewritten to suit the current regime?



They don't need to re-write history. Changing the emphasis on the narrative is enough, so look for lots of "plucky little Britain against the world" narrative, minimising the contribution of France and Russia to the _Entente_ bloc, and thoroughly ignoring our position as an imperial power.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They don't need to re-write history. Changing the emphasis on the narrative is enough, so look for lots of "plucky little Britain against the world" narrative, minimising the contribution of France and Russia to the _Entente_ bloc, and thoroughly ignoring our position as an imperial power.


 
Good point. Although I've been guilty of that very thing on this thread. Of course, my references to Britain and Germany are a gross over-simplification, though the thrust of my posts remains valid.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> A negative consequence for whom?


 
The people who sent them to their deaths.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> That if working class men on both sides had refused to fight there would have been bad consequences is not a myth that is being propogated by anybody at all now. Nobody.


But wear your poppy with "pride"


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

There's a network of radical history groups already organising around this. Here's the bumpf. There is a email list and all modern things.  

(I can't remember it all but i have just remembered i have to get a film sorted)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Unemployed headstone engravers?



Monumental masons.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

http://noglory.org/


I think counterfire have started this,


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

> Anti-war activists, pacifists and others are challenging the narrative of the official programme marking the centenary of the first world war with an alternative range of activities, some of which have received government funds.
> *They include an event to remember conscientious objectors, which is being financed with £95,800 in lottery funding allocated to the pacifist organisation that distributes white poppies.*
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/anti-war-activists-ww1-centenary



Just see the DM when they become aware of this


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

And the BUF.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

8ball said:


> The people who sent them to their deaths.



Wind forward to WWII and Churhill's ill-fated Norwegian Campaign with him learning nothing from his experience in WWI Gallipoli Campaign. History just gets rewritten with vile people becoming figure heads.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

> Siegfried Sassoon, On Passing Through the New Menim Gate
> 
> Who will remember, passing through this Gate1,
> The unheroic Dead who fed the guns?
> ...



thought I would start the war poetry on the brutality and futility of it all, till it gets banned, though I don't think the thousands who attend the Menin Gate ceremonies every year agree with Sassoon about the gate.

my grandfather had a big piece of shrapnel lodged in his mouth from WW1


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> Wind forward to WWII and Churhill's ill-fated Norwegian Campaign with him learning nothing from his experience in WWI Gallipoli Campaign. History just gets rewritten with vile people becoming figure heads.


If you fixate on military fuck ups you remove the whole point of radical responses and give it back tho the Churchill's. They've got theirs - don't let them take ours.


----------



## ChrisD (Dec 31, 2013)

Quakers around the country are creating resources to commemorate World War I. From writing plays, to creating peace education resources; from historical research to critiquing militarism in the present day. 
On this page you will find some of the resources:   http://www.quaker.org.uk/WWIresources


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

> A few weeks later in June, Culture Secretary Maria Miller, who appointed the board and is responsible for the commemorations,  echoed the Major General. In a Radio Four interview she claimed the ‘facts’ showed that ‘it was important there was a war:
> ‘I think it's important that you set out the facts and it's clear that at that point in Britain's history, it was important that there was a war that ensured that Europe could continue to be a set of countries which were strong and could be working together rather than in any other way’.



so the commemorations will be balanced then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

ChrisD said:


> Quakers around the country are creating resources to commemorate World War I. From writing plays, to creating peace education resources; from historical research to critiquing militarism in the present day.
> On this page you will find some of the resources:   http://www.quaker.org.uk/WWIresources


They came to our organising meeting for the stuff i mentioned above. It was hideous. Wouldn't touch it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> so the commemorations will be balanced then?



Where's that quote from? Extraordinary.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If you fixate on military fuck ups you remove the whole point of radical responses and give it back tho the Churchill's. They've got theirs - don't let them take ours.



What I was tring to state was that those involved in the decision making process learnt nothing from the slaughter and actually went on to be involved in an even greater slaughter.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Where's that quote from? Extraordinary.


There was huge chunk of it in the TES, I think i have it entire. Hang on.

edit: right, there's an article on the teaching of history in the TES that this quote forms a kick off point for. I think i have the whole thing somewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> What I was tring to state was that those involved in the decision making process learnt nothing from the slaughter and actually went on to be involved in an even greater slaughter.


So what? Those in power should make good decisions?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So what? Those in power should make good decisions?


 
'Managing for Excellence Chapter 5: Learning Lessons....'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

8ball said:


> 'Managing for Excellence Chapter 5: Learning Lessons....'


Managing your slaughter properly. Do it from very high up and very far away. Oh they learnt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

They also learnt  from 1917-21. Avoid at all costs fraternistion. That way lies mutinies, fraggings and all sorts of good stuff.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2013)

Marking the end in 2018 fair enough.
 Commerating the start of a massive fuck up that lead directly to round two and most of the disasters of the 20th century.
 The soviet union due to ww1
Hitler would have been an art school dropout. 20 million saved.
The middle east ww1
India pakistan end of empire due to ww1
Africa end of empire 
 Not sure china and japan can be blamed on WW1.
  End of empire may have been a good thing but without the world wars the end may have been slower more managed pakistan wouldnt exsist so that would be a few million more alive for starters then bengal famine wouldnt have been as bad another million you can add biafria etc etc.
  The inability of the great powers to not to start a truly pointless war and fight it disasterously.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Marking the end in 2018 fair enough.
> Commerating the start of a massive fuck up that lead directly to round two and most of the disasters of the 20th century.
> The soviet union due to ww1
> Hitler would have been an art school dropout. 20 million saved.
> ...


Eggs
milk
booze
history


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So what? Those in power should make good decisions?



In an ideal world yes but I fear those in power all have hidden motives? Both world wars could have been avoided if those in power had any sense of morality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> For a start, the myth that interests align around nationality rather than class i.e. that the interests of the British were opposed to the interests of the Germans. In reality, all the war offered working class people of either country was the chance to be slaughtered for an endeavour, the spoils of which they'd never receive. The interests of workers from both countries lay in peace; the interests of a tiny elite of capitalists lay in war.
> 
> The same idea is peddled today. Not only in respect of illegal wars, but in more subtle ways. Like the whole austerity drive; apparently, we're all in this together, and must all make sacrifices, now that times are hard. But, when the bankers who caused the crisis were doing well, it was every man for himself.


the question of using labour power and political representation in parliaments did of course occur to the socialists of the time who were not entirely foolish. indeed, the french cgt were sworn to hold a general strike in the event of war. but both the french and german socialists voted war credits despite their earlier commitment not to. now, you could take this as a sign of the duplicity of parliamentary representation, and you'd doubtless be to some extent right. but it's rather daft to say that interests did not align round nationality when they so very clearly did: or, rather, that in the fevered atmosphere of the time almost all socialist parties represented in national parliaments - and quite a few not so represented - found that national interests trumped class interests.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the question of using labour power and political representation in parliaments did of course occur to the socialists of the time who were not entirely foolish. indeed, the french cgt were sworn to hold a general strike in the event of war. but both the french and german socialists voted war credits despite their earlier commitment not to. now, you could take this as a sign of the duplicity of parliamentary representation, and you'd doubtless be to some extent right. but it's rather daft to say that interests did not align round nationality when they so very clearly did: or, rather, that in the fevered atmosphere of the time almost all socialist parties represented in national parliaments - and quite a few not so represented - found that national interests trumped class interests.


 
That the leaderships of parliamentary (purported) socialist groups did, in some cases, allow themselves to be persuaded in favour of war is very different from the war being in the interests of workers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Marking the end in 2018 fair enough.
> Commerating the start of a massive fuck up that lead directly to round two and most of the disasters of the 20th century.
> The soviet union due to ww1
> Hitler would have been an art school dropout. 20 million saved.
> ...


there'd have been none of this loony lefty nonsense in education which has left thousands of people unable to correctly spell 'disastrously'. or 'commemorating'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> That the leaderships of parliamentary (purported) socialist groups did, in some cases, allow themselves to be persuaded in favour of war is very different from the war being in the interests of workers.


it would be good if you could expand on your claim that the interests of british and german workers lay in peace.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

likesfish said:


> 20 million saved.



More I think in the 60+ million saved for WWII? Not sure on the figures for WWI seen 35 million mentioned . We are getting towards 100 million slaughtered. If you figure in the Cold War conflicts it must be another 10-20 million.  All really caused by WWI and it repercussions.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if you could expand on your claim that the interests of british and german workers lay in peace.


 
Surely, it's self-evident that their interests did not lay in a war for empire which left almost 40,000,000 of them dead, wounded or missing, and from which they received no great part of the spoils. Not to mention the historical consequences.

Are you suggesting that WWI was in the interests of the working class? If so, on what basis?


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2013)

Er because working in a crappy factory or farm beats.
 Industrialised slaughter or being maimed  but thats just a wild guess?

Add home rule in ireland might have have passed fairly low on the world wide slaughter counts true but even a few thousand dead helps.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if you could expand on your claim that the interests of british and german workers lay in peace.



You mean over and above the notion of a few million of them not being killed?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Er because working in a crappy factory or farm beats.
> Industrialised slaughter or being maimed  but thats just a wild guess?


So, why did you sign up again?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 31, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632


 
FFS - I thought that was a spoof til I clicked the link.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632



Just brings up that cringe worthy Canon Fodder saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2013)

Because I'm an idiot
 But then again being drunk in germany and cyprus  was more fun than hastings.
  To misquote Captain black adder hardest thing I had to do was learn greek for another brandy sour and do you do it doggy style in swedish, discovering our dear leader wanted to go fight in a giant sandpit and then stop assorted balkan tribes from slaughtering one another came as quite a shock


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 31, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632


 
That is fucking ghastly.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

There really must be a campaign to stop that, who ever thought up that obscenity should be sacked.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

Time for the BBC to show The monocled mutineer again (no, i don't care if not every detail was correct). As if. _Rights issues _my anus.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2013)

Yes its an iconic image.
 No its not on the menin gate or a poppy would have been better or a cemetary


----------



## Libertad (Dec 31, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butcher Haig being on a £2 coin is not a good omen.



Are there plans to do this as well as portraying Kitchener?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Yes its an iconic image.


 
So is the one of Kennedy's head exploding but I can't see the Yanks having that on their stamps.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

Libertad said:


> Are there plans to do this as well as portraying Kitchener?


 
Yep, portrayed leading the troops valiantly into battle while riding a white stallion with a big horse erection.


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

eatmorecheese said:


> That is fucking ghastly.



Maybe the gharstliness of the image is the point. It is an iconic image, but no-one who looks at that image today can ignore the fact that it was nationalistic propoganda and nationalistic propoganda that had terrible consequences. 

Its not as though it is being used to promote self-sacrifice in the name of the common good such as, for example, an explicit link to ideas such as, for example, 'The Big Society'.

It is this context with the lessons of history that have been learnt that makes it not gharstly. I quite like it.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 31, 2013)

I think a revolutionary Baldrick staring into the middle distance would be much more appropriate, with Melchett looming in the background paternally thrusting a gun against his back.


----------



## elbows (Dec 31, 2013)

Looking out for criticism of the coin choice in the media. Found something in the Express so far:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/451298/Royal-Mint-unveils-new-coins-for-2014



> The decision is likely to raise eyebrows as the slogan is now associated by some with the devastation that followed – the deaths of millions of young men who had signed up for the Army as hopeful volunteers.
> 
> The choice of Lord Kitchener's famous image may prove controversial with those who see the poppy as a more enduring and fitting image to commemorate the start of the deadly conflict, sparked on July 28, 1914.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 31, 2013)

In 1978 I did a geriatric nursing module at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. Because I was in the army, I had the perk of membership of the Pensioner's Club (something I still have).

At that time there were still a goodly number of Pensioners who had fought in WWI. It is a deep regret that I didn't record their reminiscences, it focussed the horror in a way that writing cannot. One bloke told me about the first battle of the Somme, 120 men in his Company went over the top at dawn, by sunset, there were seven not dead or wounded. The carnage was unimaginable.

I've seen war, not big war like WWI or WWII, just a little one. That was more than enough for me. I have never felt as helpless as being on a ship that was bombed, and nothing that you could do to stop it. Funnily enough, at the time I wasn't really frightened, I was trying to help those who were injured, with bugger all really to do it with. After I got off, and was relatively safe, I shook for a couple of hours. 

Whether it is age in general, giving a wider view, or merely late onset common sense, I am now of the view that resolution, where possible, is better than violence. 

I do not think that WWI is something to be celebrated. 2014 is not the time to commemorate the centenary, 2018 is the time to remember, not the 'victory', but all of those, on all sides, who died in the fighting. A time to remember those displaced by the war, a time to remember all those who were 'collateral damage'.

WWII was a direct result of Versailles, and a stark reminder that whereas you may not forget, you must forgive. To a large extent, the aftermath of WWII was handled much better.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2013)

elbows said:


> Looking out for criticism of the coin choice in the media. Found something in the Express so far:
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/451298/Royal-Mint-unveils-new-coins-for-2014


 
See the comments for added facepalm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You mean over and above the notion of a few million of them not being killed?


no, i mean you seem to be identifying the cause of workers with the cause of bosses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> Surely, it's self-evident that their interests did not lay in a war for empire which left almost 40,000,000 of them dead, wounded or missing, and from which they received no great part of the spoils. Not to mention the historical consequences.
> 
> Are you suggesting that WWI was in the interests of the working class? If so, on what basis?


if it is so self-evident then you'll doubtless tell me why so many workers joined up without coercion

e2a1: i have to challenge your claim that the war left 40 million british and german workers killed, wounded or missing. can you produce some evidence to support your assertion?

e2a2: i am remaining silent on the issue of whether i think the war was in the interests of the working class, because i am asking you to support your assertion that peace was in the interests of the working class. asking you to justify your position is not necessarily taking up an opposing position.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i mean you seem to be identifying the cause of workers with the cause of bosses.



Do I?
Maybe it's just me being dopey, but I don't see where that's come from?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Do I?
> Maybe it's just me being dopey, but I don't see where that's come from?


let's take this stage by stage. whose interests do you think were served by war in the summer of 1914?


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 31, 2013)




----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's take this stage by stage. whose interests do you think were served by war in the summer of 1914?



It was in the interests of US industrial capital.  Perhaps they were able to manipulate events from the sidelines.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> It was in the interests of US industrial capital.  Perhaps they were able to manipulate events from the sidelines.


how was it in the interests of us industrial capital in the summer and autumn of 1914?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

stowpirate said:


>


where in britain is columbus?


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how was it in the interests of us industrial capital in the summer and autumn of 1914?



Economically


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's take this stage by stage. whose interests do you think were served by war in the summer of 1914?



Stage by stage, OK...but my response followed your request, of Athos, to justify his assertion that peace would have been in the interests of the workers. That peace would have averted the death of millions of workers seems valid enough to me. What was inadequate about that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Economically


and approximately how much money did the yankee military industrial complex make from the conflict between august 1914 and december 1914?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Stage by stage, OK...but my response followed your request, of Athos, to justify his assertion that peace would have been in the interests of the workers. That peace would have averted the death of millions of workers seems valid enough to me. What was inadequate about that?


that doesn't answer the question 'in whose interests was war in the summer of 1914?'


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if it is so self-evident then you'll doubtless tell me why so many workers joined up without coercion
> 
> e2a1: i have to challenge your claim that the war left 40 million british and german workers killed, wounded or missing. can you produce some evidence to support your assertion?
> 
> e2a2: i am remaining silent on the issue of whether i think the war was in the interests of the working class, because i am asking you to support your assertion that peace was in the interests of the working class. asking you to justify your position is not necessarily taking up an opposing position.


 
I'm sure people joined for a number of reasons, including propaganda and enormous social pressure. And a mistaken belief that their interests were more closely aligned with their political masters', than those of their class in foreign lands. But, whatever they thought at the time, it's clear now that the whole affair was a disaster for working class people.

40m, 20, 10? We can argue all day about precise figures. But it's a distraction. Lets agree on 'lots.' The point remains the same.

Whether or not you agree with it, I've ser my position out. What's yours? Do you believe WWI was in the interests of workers on the opposing sides?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that doesn't answer the question 'in whose interests was war in the summer of 1914?'


Correct, and principally so because we were engaged on this point;



> it would be good if you could expand on your claim that the interests of british and german workers lay in peace.



..and not your subsequent question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Correct, and principally so because we were engaged on this point;


we were dealing with that point stage by stage, as you agreed.


----------



## gridban (Dec 31, 2013)

8ball said:


> See the comments for added facepalm.


I just did - now I wish I hadn't. About what I'd expect from the Express I guess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> I'm sure people joined for a number of reasons, including propaganda and enormous social pressure. And a mistaken belief that their interests were more closely aligned with their political masters', than those of their class in foreign lands. But, whatever they thought at the time, it's clear now that the whole affair was a disaster for working class people.
> 
> 40m, 20, 10? We can argue all day about precise figures. But it's a distraction. Lets agree on 'lots.' The point remains the same.
> 
> Whether or not you agree with it, I've ser my position out. What's yours? Do you believe WWI was in the interests of workers on the opposing sides?


you have made some bold claims - for example that all of the socialist parties which ended up supporting the war were in fact only purportedly socialist. i suppose you consider kropotkin only a purported anarchist because of his support for the allied cause. you have claimed that war was not in the interests of the working class and that peace was, not because peace advanced their interests, but because fewer people would have suffered an early death. to my mind, the interests of the middle class could be described in much the same way, that due to the large numbers of middle class men who were killed the war was not in their interests. indeed, if we're going to go down that path the war was not in fact in the interests of the ruling class, not least because numbers of them lost their heads - among the monarchs notably the russian royal family - and others their thrones. so, if the war was against the interests of the whole of society - on the terms you've laid out - then in whose interests was it?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> we were dealing with that point stage by stage, as you agreed.



Agreed; so starting with Athos' assertion that the slaughter of millions of proletarians demonstrates that war was not in their interest. What is about that argument that you take issue with?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Agreed; so starting with Athos' assertion that the slaughter of millions of proletarians demonstrates that war was not in their interest. What is about that argument that you take issue with?


that it is a facile analysis tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

gridban said:


> I just did - now I wish I hadn't. About what I'd expect from the Express I guess.


 Reads like some sort of stream of conciousness ranting from a UKIP fringe meeting.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that it is a facile analysis tbh.


 
And would you care to justify that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> And would you care to justify that?


i have done.


----------



## gridban (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Time for the BBC to show The monocled mutineer again (no, i don't care if not every detail was correct). As if. _Rights issues _my anus.


Ah I'd love to see that again - would be a very appropriate commemoration I think.


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2013)

Maybe the First World War was a cockup rather than a conspiracy. The main groups it benefited (US industrial interests, Russian Bolsheviks, Japan, British and German democratic left parties) were not involved in the decision to start it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

gridban said:


> Ah I'd love to see that again - would be a very appropriate commemoration I think.


not to mention some record of the thousands of men who for a wide range of reasons refused to fight. local newspapers of the time are full of reports from courts of men who refused to accept conscription.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Maybe the First World War was a cockup rather than a conspiracy. The main groups it benefited (US industrial interests, Russian Bolsheviks) were not involved in the decision to start it.


though i think you'll find that the bolsheviks did take part in the duma vote on war credits.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i have done.



Above?

To the extent that you appear to claim that as the war was not in the interests of any class, it is somehow inappropriate to say that it was not in the interest of the working class?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Above?
> 
> To the extent that you appear to claim that as the war was not in the interests of any class, it is somehow inappropriate to say that it was not in the interest of the working class?


the thing is, that interests are not solely calculated on a quantum of deaths. they are also calculated on other bases: for example, was the working class in 1919 more or less formidable than the working class of 1914? did the war advance or work against the interests of working people - their pay and conditions, for example? it's not like the entire working class was up the front. and it's not like the 40m figure Athos comes out with above is the working class figure, let alone the true figure for britain and germany. the total killed wounded and missing - admittedly according to wikipedia - was 37m. so while lots of people - middle class, ruling class, and yes working class - suffered during the war unless and until athos looks at the wider interests of the working class i feel that his conclusions are at best only partially correct.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

oh - i suppose Athos thinks that the republicans shouldn't have fought the spanish civil war because of the number of deaths.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you have made some bold claims - for example that all of the socialist parties which ended up supporting the war were in fact only purportedly socialist. i suppose you consider kropotkin only a purported anarchist because of his support for the allied cause. you have claimed that war was not in the interests of the working class and that peace was, not because peace advanced their interests, but because fewer people would have suffered an early death. to my mind, the interests of the middle class could be described in much the same way, that due to the large numbers of middle class men who were killed the war was not in their interests. indeed, if we're going to go down that path the war was not in fact in the interests of the ruling class, not least because numbers of them lost their heads - among the monarchs notably the russian royal family - and others their thrones. so, if the war was against the interests of the whole of society - on the terms you've laid out - then in whose interests was it?


 
I didn't make some of the claims you suggest.

To my mind, WWI had costs and benefits to all classes, but it's clear that the working class bore the disproportionately large part if the former, whereas capitalists reaped the disproportionately large part of the latter. That's why I believe that the interests of the working class would have been better served by not going into such a war. And that's not as simple as saying that peace would have meant fewer working class dead; rather the absence of peace effectively precluded opportunities for other working class action.

I've told you what I think. What about you? Whose interests were served by WWI? And whose were harmed by it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> I didn't make some of the claims you suggest.


which ones?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> oh - i suppose Athos thinks that the republicans shouldn't have fought the spanish civil war because of the number of deaths.


 
It's not just about the numbers; it's about whose interests the deaths serve.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos: could you answer the question in #98?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Athos: could you answer the question in #98?


 
I'm on a phone, so I can't see the post numbers.

But, in any event, rather than demand answers of me, how about you provide some of your own.

Starting with the fundamental question: was WWI in the interests of workers in the countries involved?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

you've said i made up claims and attributed them to you. now you're reluctant to provide answers to that. will you say which claims? not on your current evasive performance.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is, that interests are not solely calculated on a quantum of deaths. they are also calculated on other bases: for example, was the working class in 1919 more or less formidable than the working class of 1914? did the war advance or work against the interests of working people - their pay and conditions, for example? it's not like the entire working class was up the front. and it's not like the 40m figure Athos comes out with above is the working class figure, let alone the true figure for britain and germany. the total killed wounded and missing - admittedly according to wikipedia - was 37m. so while lots of people - middle class, ruling class, and yes working class - suffered during the war unless and until athos looks at the wider interests of the working class i feel that his conclusions are at best only partially correct.



tbf I'd think that most posters here would accept that any of their conclusions were, at best, partially 'correct'. 

Yes, I'd agree that the concept of class interests extends beyond the quantification of war casualties, but it appears somewhat contraian to equate concerns for pay and conditions or even notions of revolutionary potential with the central fact that tens of millions of proletarians died fighting a war on behalf of competing imperialist, capitalist ruling classes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> tbf I'd think that most posters here would accept that any of their conclusions were, at best, partially 'correct'.
> 
> Yes, I'd agree that the concept of class interests extends beyond the quantification of war casualties, but it appears somewhat contraian to equate concerns for pay and conditions or even notions of revolutionary potential with the central fact that tens of millions of proletarians died fighting a war on behalf of competing imperialist, capitalist ruling classes.


perhaps you could concentrate on what i did say instead of what i didn't.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you've said i made up claims and attributed them to you. now you're reluctant to provide answers to that. will you say which claims? not on your current evasive performance.


 
For instance your suggestion that I claimed that all the socialist parties that supported the war were only purportedly socialist, the suggestion being that I had implied that none of them were 'genuinely' socialist. That doesn't follow from what I actually wrote.

But I didn't accuse you of making them up; I'm quite willing to accept that you may have misunderstood what I meant (possibly my fault)

Can you answer my question, please?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could concentrate on what i did say instead of what i didn't.



You said...



> ...interests are not solely calculated on a quantum of deaths. they are also calculated on other bases: for example, was the working class in 1919 more or less formidable than the working class of 1914? did the war advance or work against the interests of working people - their pay and conditions, for example?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> That the leaderships of parliamentary (purported) socialist groups did, in some cases, allow themselves to be persuaded in favour of war is very different from the war being in the interests of workers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You said...


yes. i said there were a variety of bases from which working class interests could be calculated, i didn't say they all had the same weight: that is, i did not 'equate' them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2013)

Athos said:


> For instance your suggestion that I claimed that all the socialist parties that supported the war were only purportedly socialist, the suggestion being that I had implied that none of them were 'genuinely' socialist. That doesn't follow from what I actually wrote.
> 
> But I didn't accuse you of making them up; I'm quite willing to accept that you may have misunderstood what I meant (possibly my fault)
> 
> Can you answer my question, please?


yes


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
Some weren't socialist; some were. They all purported to be.

Once again, though, you're choking the life out of a thread by focussing on tangential points.

Can you answer the question I put to you: was WWI in the interests of the workers of the countries involved?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. i said there were a variety of bases from which working class interests could be calculated, i didn't say they all had the same weight: that is, i did not 'equate' them.



But you had appeared to take issue with the assertion that the deaths of millions of workers transcended other metrics of class interest. Are you now accepting that point?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


 
Yes it was in the workers' interests, or yes you can answer the question?

Either way, I'd be interested to hear more.


----------



## krink (Dec 31, 2013)

here's a video i watched today, with footage I have never seen of shell-shock victims. be warned, seeing these poor, destroyed people is truly heartbreaking.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 31, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632


Remember the 'Great' war yes, teach children about it definitely. But this coin is terrible.

the image, though in graphic terms is very famous and influencial, it is a sickening reminder of the stupid patriotic propaganda of the times. I don't our coins shouldn't glorify such shit. Horrified about Haig featuring too - my dad always told me that our soldiers were 'Lions led by donkeys' (not sure who he was quoting there) and that Haig was the chief donkey.

My grandad was a private in that war, but apart from grumpily saying things like "I didn't fight a war for young people to ....." he didn't talk about it. I mostly learned about it from the TV series the 'world at war'. Aparently he survived the Somme because he was with the horse drawn artillery at the back - pulling big guns, firing, then moving position before the other side could fire back at them.

I'd be interested to hear if Urbs have any first hand stories from their relatives. I'd like to hear some different viewpoints from the usual tv trenches and mud stories. What happened to conscientious objectors? Were women really pushing their men to volunteer? stories of the women making munitious? How did people with german family or friends cope (unless they changed their name to Windsor)

Pickman's model and Athos - I'm sure you both have some interesting points on the subject, but your bickering is very dull.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> I do not think that WWI is something to be celebrated. 2014 is not the time to commemorate the centenary, 2018 is the time to remember, not the 'victory', but all of those, on all sides, who died in the fighting. A time to remember those displaced by the war, a time to remember all those who were 'collateral damage'.
> 
> WWII was a direct result of Versailles, and a stark reminder that whereas you may not forget, you must forgive. To a large extent, the aftermath of WWII was handled much better.




Cameron has done it while he is still in power.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 31, 2013)

I still haven't forgiven capitalism for word war 1. 

Next time anyone tries emotionally blackmailing you for being a communist or socialist and those died in communist/socialist societies just remind them of the somme, where the classical era of liberal capitalism reached it's final conclusion.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 31, 2013)

That £2 coin is weird. It has been unfashionable for decades to focus on the "donkeys" ahead of the "lions". Like a brain fart from the 1950s.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 31, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632


Did the poster exist?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 31, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Did the poster exist?


what


----------



## toggle (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention some record of the thousands of men who for a wide range of reasons refused to fight. local newspapers of the time are full of reports from courts of men who refused to accept conscription.



nods. i'm going to need to go through my local papers for this soon.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is, that interests are not solely calculated on a quantum of deaths. they are also calculated on other bases: for example, was the working class in 1919 more or less formidable than the working class of 1914? did the war advance or work against the interests of working people - their pay and conditions, for example? it's not like the entire working class was up the front. and it's not like the 40m figure Athos comes out with above is the working class figure, let alone the true figure for britain and germany. the total killed wounded and missing - admittedly according to wikipedia - was 37m. so while lots of people - middle class, ruling class, and yes working class - suffered during the war unless and until athos looks at the wider interests of the working class i feel that his conclusions are at best only partially correct.



It can be argued with a deal of justification, that the classes, pro rata, who suffered the greatest attrition rate in WWI were the upper, and upper middle classes. 2nd Lt's, who lead their troops from the front, came from those classes primarily. A 2nd Lt had about a six week life span.

The argument that the proletariat sustained the greatest pro rata losses is risible, and an insult to those young officers who died.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It can be argued with a deal of justification, that the classes, pro rata, who suffered the greatest attrition rate in WWI were the upper, and upper middle classes. 2nd Lt's, who lead their troops from the front, came from those classes primarily. A 2nd Lt had about a six week life span.
> 
> The argument that the proletariat sustained the greatest pro rata losses is risible, and an insult to those young officers who died.


Daft cunt.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It can be argued with a deal of justification, that the classes, pro rata, who suffered the greatest attrition rate in WWI were the upper, and upper middle classes. 2nd Lt's, who lead their troops from the front, came from those classes primarily. A 2nd Lt had about a six week life span.
> 
> The argument that the proletariat sustained the greatest pro rata losses is risible, and an insult to those young officers who died.


Other ranks out numbered these officiers by quite a margin


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> Other ranks out numbered these officiers by quite a margin



Indeed they did, by roughly 20 : 1 through most of the war. Statistically though, that made officers, fifty percent more likely to be killed/wounded than if they had been in the other ranks. (They were also roughly twice a likely to be a casualty than their German counterparts, but this probably reflected the generally greater number of men commanded by each German officer).

What I find odd about Sasaferrato's post is the implied assumption that the entire officer body was composed of men from the "upper and middle classes". The officer casulty rates correlated negatively with rank, and it is clear that, as the war 'progressed' and 'manpower shortages' increased, significant numbers of the most exposed, junior officers in theatre were drawn from the proletariat, albeit many via the grammar school system.

But tbh, I don't think anyone was actually arguing 'top trumps' style over the "pro-rata" losses, merely that the capitalists' war was a disaster for the working class who died in their millions. No insult was offered to any group(s) of people, save those that casued the slaughter.


----------



## gosub (Jan 1, 2014)

Telegraph is putting each edition from 100 years ago up each day, first thing that striikes you is thank fuck for DTP


----------



## Libertad (Jan 1, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Did the poster exist?



Interesting article that. It would seem that the Royal Mint has produced a coin bearing an image that has become part of popular history whilst, in reality, being an urban myth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25558632



I'd nail one of those to the forehead of every jingoistic cunt who celebrates WW1 rather than gives remembrance to the dead, starting with most of the cunts that inhabit the Palace of Westminister.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2014)

krink said:


> here's a video i watched today, with footage I have never seen of shell-shock victims. be warned, seeing these poor, destroyed people is truly heartbreaking.




Between the '50s and the '70s my paternal grandad was "given a rest cure" (sectioned, basically) because he'd have bouts of ptsd-related psychosis (due to his experiences in pre-war India and Burma, and duing WW2 in Europe).  The ward he was committed to was the same one where (at that time) there were still quite a few shell-shock victims who'd been there since WW1 - catatonics, screamers, weepers and self-harmers, and all that was done for them was a big dose of whatever worked to knock them out.  All that was *ever* done for them was to just anaesthetise the fuck out of them!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> That £2 coin is weird. It has been unfashionable for decades to focus on the "donkeys" ahead of the "lions". Like a brain fart from the 1950s.



It's of a piece with what the Etonians who're currently leading this nation were raised to believe, though.
Tangentially, have you read Anthony Selsdon's piece in the New Statesman of a couple of weeks ago? It's pretty much a celebration of public school officerdom during WW1 that almost, but not quite, sets the contribution of the officer corps as the paragon of "self sacrifice".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Indeed they did, by roughly 20 : 1 through most of the war. Statistically though, that made officers, fifty percent more likely to be killed/wounded than if they had been in the other ranks. (They were also roughly twice a likely to be a casualty than their German counterparts, but this probably reflected the generally greater number of men commanded by each German officer).
> 
> What I find odd about Sasaferrato's post is the implied assumption that the entire officer body was composed of men from the "upper and middle classes". The officer casulty rates correlated negatively with rank, and it is clear that, as the war 'progressed' and 'manpower shortages' increased, significant numbers of the most exposed, junior officers in theatre were drawn from the proletariat, albeit many via the grammar school system.



Yup, even by 1915, "other ranks" who gained field promotions made up about a quarter of all junior officers.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Indeed they did, by roughly 20 : 1 through most of the war. Statistically though, that made officers, fifty percent more likely to be killed/wounded than if they had been in the other ranks. (They were also roughly twice a likely to be a casualty than their German counterparts, but this probably reflected the generally greater number of men commanded by each German officer).
> 
> What I find odd about Sasaferrato's post is the implied assumption that the entire officer body was composed of men from the "upper and middle classes". The officer casulty rates correlated negatively with rank, and it is clear that, as the war 'progressed' and 'manpower shortages' increased, significant numbers of the most exposed, junior officers in theatre were drawn from the proletariat, albeit many via the grammar school system.
> 
> But tbh, I don't think anyone was actually arguing 'top trumps' style over the "pro-rata" losses, merely that the capitalists' war was a disaster for the working class who died in their millions. No insult was offered to any group(s) of people, save those that casued the slaughter.



They were indeed, as the war progressed. The reason being that the attrition rate was so high. My great uncles, who fought in WWI, always reckoned that being an 'other rank' was more conducive to survival than being a junior officer. I've always thought that had the General Staff been leading the assaults, another means of resolving conflict would be found.

There is of course one modern example of a senior officer 'leading the charge' to get a stalled situation moving again. He got a posthumous VC.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> They were indeed, as the war progressed. The reason being that the attrition rate was so high. My great uncles, who fought in WWI, always reckoned that being an 'other rank' was more conducive to survival than being a junior officer. I've always thought that had the General Staff been leading the assaults, another means of resolving conflict would be found.
> 
> There is of course one modern example of a senior officer 'leading the charge' to get a stalled situation moving again. He got a posthumous VC.


 
And shot by his own men. If the rumours are to be believed.


----------



## agricola (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I've always thought that had the General Staff been leading the assaults, another means of resolving conflict would be found.



Certainly that General Staff would have, not sure whether some other generations of senior Army leaders would.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

[quote="friendofdorothy, post: 12814369, member:


> Remember the 'Great' war yes, teach children about it definitely. But this coin is terrible.
> Were women really pushing their men to volunteer? .... How did people with german family or friends cope (unless they changed their name to Windsor)



My knowlege is pretty limited but Ive found James Connollys writings from the time to be quite informative . In one essay he excoriates the women of Dublin...empires second city at the time.. for pressurising their husbands into joining up in order to get the seperation allowance . Then of course you had the other daft bitches running about giving men white feathers on the street .

Other Irish historians Ive been reading have been turning up some pretty nasty outbreaks of anti semitism as well, as apparently jews back then were classed as pro german . The former Lord Mayor of Belfast was a man called Otto Jaffe . He was driven from his home one night by patriotic loyalists in a quite vicious attack and was lucky to escape with his life , because he was jewish and therefore pro german in his attackers eyes . One  of his sons was a British officer at the front . It wasnt just loyalist thugs attacking him, the well heeled were driving him from public life too .

http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/550/otto-jaffe
_However, Jaffe’s philanthropy was poorly rewarded during the first world war when a group of Belfast ladies refused to support the Children’s Hospital if ‘the Germans’, Jaffe and his wife, remained on the board._

http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/jaffe.htm

and from Churchill

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?a=a;reference=CHAR 13/37/5

Ive read other instances from the same period of pro British mobs in Dublin led by men in British army uniform attacking jewish owned homes and businesses on the same basis . Another jewish man was taken from a tram outside Newry by loyalists and almost beaten to death .

Im assuming these outbreaks of loyalty were similar to what was going on in Britain


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

How do I put a You Tube video into a post please?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It can be argued with _*a deal of justification*_, that the classes, pro rata, who suffered the greatest attrition rate in WWI were the upper, and upper middle classes.



Incidentally Sasaferrato, what sources have you seen to support that claim of justification? I ask because I've found it very difficult/impossible to access such data by rank.

At best, I've come across small-scale examinations of casualty data, usually by Division etc. One such being of the 55th West Lancashire Division by Rev Coop. In which he found that:-



> Number of Officers who served 2870
> 
> Number of Officers killed 385 or 13%
> 
> ...



Obviously such a study can't necessairly be representative of the wider picture, but nonetheless it does not demonstrate what you claimed above. Got any links?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> And shot by his own men. If the rumours are to be believed.



It was the general view in the army at the time, that he would have been lucky to escape a Court Martial, had he survived. What he did was wrong on many levels. A heroic action though. 'Worth' a VC? Possibly.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Incidentally Sasaferrato, what sources have you seen to support that claim of justification? I ask because I've found it very difficult/impossible to access such data by rank.
> 
> At best, I've come across small-scale examinations of casualty data, usually by Division etc. One such being of the 55th West Lancashire Division by Rev Coop. In which he found that:-
> 
> ...



http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Weeks-Gallant-British-Officer/dp/1409102149


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Horrified about Haig featuring too - my dad always told me that our soldiers were 'Lions led by donkeys' (not sure who he was quoting there) and that Haig was the chief donkey.



Point of accuracy: it's Kitchener, not Haig. Kitchener was the one who butchered his way across Africa in the 19th century, culminating with the deaths of 26,000 or so Boer men, women and children in the South African concentration camps



> I mostly learned about it from the TV series the 'world at war'.


If you mean the 1973 Thames TV series, that was about WWII

Anyway, not disagreeing with your general feelings obv


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> How do I put a You Tube video into a post please?


Click on the icon above the text box that looks like some strips of film and c&p the URL into the box that pops up


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Weeks-Gallant-British-Officer/dp/1409102149


 Probably an interesting book, but that isn't what I was interested in.

You did say that... 





> _*It can be argued with a deal of justification, that the classes, pro rata, who suffered the greatest attrition rate in WWI were the upper, and upper middle classes.*_



Where's the justification for that claim, or was it just your impression?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Click on the icon above the text box that looks like some strips of film and c&p the URL into the box that pops up



Thank you. For some reason, if I scrape the URL in Firefox, it doesn't work, it does work with IE though, for some strange reason.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Probably an interesting book, but that isn't what I was interested in.
> 
> You did say that...
> 
> Where's the justification for that claim, or was it just your impression?



I honestly cannot be bothered with this petty nitpicking. The information is out there. If you dispute what I say, prove it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)




----------



## white rabbit (Jan 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> More I think in the 60+ million saved for WWII? Not sure on the figures for WWI seen 35 million mentioned . We are getting towards 100 million slaughtered. If you figure in the Cold War conflicts it must be another 10-20 million.  All really caused by WWI and it repercussions.


The trouble with counterfactuals is that although you mights say the seeds of WWII lie in the terms of the end of WWI, we can't say what seeds might have been planted otherwise. One possible outcome of averting the first war might have been peace and prosperity. It may also be similar or greater conflict.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> The trouble with counterfactuals is that although you mights say the seeds of WWII lie in the terms of the end of WWI, we can't say what seeds might have been planted otherwise. One possible outcome of averting the first war might have been peace and prosperity. It may also be similar or greater conflict.


If the Central Powers had won WWI, would 21st century counterfactuals speculate on the rise of Nazism? It was an outside shot at best surely?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I honestly cannot be bothered with this petty nitpicking. The information is out there. If you dispute what I say, prove it.





I've already told you that, thusfar, I've found it impossible to access the sort of data that could justify you claim, (or otherwise). I was just interested to know from you what the "_*deal of justification" *_was for your contention that it was the upper and middle classes that, pro-rata, suffered the greatest losses in WWI.

From your reaction, above, I'm assuming that it was just your opinion. Which kinda begs the question about why someone might want to articulate such a view that appeared to seek to diminish the impact of the war on the working class.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I honestly cannot be bothered with this petty nitpicking. The information is out there. If you dispute what I say, prove it.


You made a ludicrous claim,back it up.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 1, 2014)

Of course, if you were more excited than scared off from wanting a commission by a junior officer's life expectancy on the ground, you'd love the idea of joining the Royal Flying Corps.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

peterkro said:


> You made a ludicrous claim,back it up.



Prove me wrong. I have better things to do. The link to the book, if you can actually be bothered to read it, explains where the majority of junior officers came from, which was the public schools. In such numbers that there were to many to process at times. The title of the book explains the SIX WEEK average life span of those young men.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Prove me wrong. I have better things to do. The link to the book, if you can actually be bothered to read it, explains where the majority of junior officers came from, which was the public schools. In such numbers that there were to many to process at times. The title of the book explains the SIX WEEK average life span of those young men.


There is a long established internet protocol,if you make a claim and are challenged you need to back it up with citations otherwise it is bollocks.

Aside from anything else you seem to think only Brits were involved amongst the ANZACS and Canucks junior officers were quite likely to be working class.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> If the Central Powers had won WWI, would 21st century counterfactuals speculate on the rise of Nazism? It was an outside shot at best surely?



highly unlikely in my view .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Of course, if you were more excited than scared off from wanting a commission by a junior officer's life expectancy on the ground, you'd love the idea of joining the Royal Flying Corps.



didnt they take the rather interesting  view that giving pilots parachutes would only encourage them to jump out of the plane


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> didnt they take the rather interesting  view that giving pilots parachutes would only encourage them to jump out of the plane



Some senior officers did, yes. They thought that issuing pilots parachutes might encourage them to bail out rather than continue a mission.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

its real Blackadder stuff that


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Prove me wrong. I have better things to do. The link to the book, if you can actually be bothered to read it, _*explains where the majority of junior officers came from, which was the public schools*_. In such numbers that there were to many to process at times. The title of the book explains the SIX WEEK average life span of those young men.



Well, again...some data or facts to back up that assertion would be useful; particularly by year.

Gotta say, your reaction to questionning is disappointing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No insult was offered to any group(s) of people, save those that casued the slaughter.


i haven't seen any insult offered here to the likes of gavrilo princip. though i await them with interest.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Daft cunt.



Offensive arsehole.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> its real Blackadder stuff that


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

have to say its a bit of an extreme way to go about avoiding buying superior and cheaper German products in the shop , killing millions of people .


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Well, again...some data or facts to back up that assertion would be useful; particularly by year.
> 
> Gotta say, your reaction to questionning is disappointing.



I'm busy. I play an online war game. At the moment I'm playing three IDs, my own, and two other alliance members who are away, one of whom is under attack. Trivial? Quite possibly, but when one undertakes a task...


----------



## likesfish (Jan 1, 2014)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Weeks-Gallant-British-Officer/dp/1409102149
 6 weeks for an officerdead or wounded
12 weeks for other ranks 

You were twice as likey to die as a junior officer than other ranks


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Above?
> 
> To the extent that you appear to claim that as the war was not in the interests of any class, it is somehow inappropriate to say that it was not in the interest of the working class?


what seems to have been argued by e.g. athos is that the great slaughter of working class people was not in the interests of the working class. i cannot think of a war which has been declared by a government which has been declared to be in the interests of the working class, or which has been objectively in the interests of the working class in the ways i believe athos to mean. in this case, saying that the first world war was not in the interests of the working class due to working class people being killed in it is facile and banal. was the second world war in the interests of the working class? would the working class have been better off if britain had sat out the first world war? was the fall of the kaiser not in the interests of the working class? what i would have liked to see would have been a more nuanced discussion of what the interests of the working class were, and a comparison of those to the what came out of the war than a simplistic 'it wasn't fought in the interests of the working class because working class people died in it'. does such a facile statement advance understanding of the first world war or does it rather indicate a shallow notion of historical realities, an anachronistic view of history and an unwelcome element of windbagging sloganeering?


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Weeks-Gallant-British-Officer/dp/1409102149
> 6 weeks for an officerdead or wounded
> 12 weeks for other ranks
> 
> You were twice as likey to die as a junior officer than other ranks



In the RFC the average fluctuated depending on which side had better aircraft in superior numbers. That said, the average life expectancy of a rookie RFC pilot was likely to be three or for weeks during a good spell. And during a bad one like 'Bloody April (April 1917)?

8 days.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 1, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> what


The article is about the famous Kitchener poster, which a research historian claims never existed i.e. did the poster exist?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm busy. I play an online war game. At the moment I'm playing three IDs, my own, and two other alliance members who are away, one of whom is under attack. Trivial? Quite possibly, but when one undertakes a task...


 That's fine.

I'm sure you'll understand, then, when I say I'm 'too busy' to take your unsubstantiated opinions seriously.

IMO you appear all too willing to base your views on a very restricted and partial account of the war that overlooks the appointment of officers not educated by the public schools.

Shame you don't want to debate properly.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

one thing ive rarely seen is any stories about the Brits good mates and allies at the time, the japanese .


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what seems to have been argued by e.g. athos is that the great slaughter of working class people was not in the interests of the working class. i cannot think of a war which has been declared by a government which has been declared to be in the interests of the working class, or which has been objectively in the interests of the working class in the ways i believe athos to mean. in this case, saying that the first world war was not in the interests of the working class due to working class people being killed in it is facile and banal. was the second world war in the interests of the working class? would the working class have been better off if britain had sat out the first world war? was the fall of the kaiser not in the interests of the working class? what i would have liked to see would have been a more nuanced discussion of what the interests of the working class were, and a comparison of those to the what came out of the war than a simplistic 'it wasn't fought in the interests of the working class because working class people died in it'. does such a facile statement advance understanding of the first world war or does it rather indicate a shallow notion of historical realities, an anachronistic view of history and an unwelcome element of windbagging sloganeering?



OK, I'm getting your point a bit more clearly now. (Apologies if it's my fault for being a bit slow).

So, your position is that no war has ever been declared that could possibly be in the interests of the working class? If so, I'd agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, I'm getting your point a bit more clearly now. (Apologies if it's my fault for being a bit slow).
> 
> So, your position is that no war has ever been declared that could possibly be in the interests of the working class? If so, I'd agree wholeheartedly.


my point's a bit different, that no war has been declared which has been consciously in the interests of the working class, although there have been advances in working class interests as a consequence of some wars: but saying war x is against the interests of the working class purely because people died is trite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one thing ive rarely seen is any stories about the Brits good mates and allies at the time, the japanese .


sure they were in the mediterranean in '14/'18.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

and more besides


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one thing ive rarely seen is any stories about the Brits good mates and allies at the time, the japanese .


I saw a documentary a few years back that claimed they treated their prisoners particularly well.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one thing ive rarely seen is any stories about the Brits good mates and allies at the time, the japanese .


Probably because, whilst Japan had a good war in terms of increasing its standing in the world, the Pacific theatre and Japanese aid to Britain was vastly overshadowed by the war in Europe. Most people wouldn't even know that Japan was involved, let alone whose side they were on, because to a Euro-centric observer they barely did anything beyond seizing German territories and sending a few ships to the Med


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> sure they were in the mediterranean in '14/'18.


17/18


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

Id be interested in hearing more about the anti consciption campaigns in Britain if anyones any useful info . The Irish campaign is pretty well documented but ive heard very little about the British one .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> 17/18


i meant during the first world war than maintaining a continuous presence from 4/8/14 to 11/11/18


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i meant during the first world war than maintaining a continuous presence from 4/8/14 to 11/11/18


OK, makes sense


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> my point's a bit different, that no war has been declared which has been consciously in the interests of the working class, although there have been advances in working class interests as a consequence of some wars: but saying war x is against the interests of the working class purely because people died is trite.



I suppose it depends on the classification of war, really. If we're talking exclusively of formal wars declared between sovereign states, then no. But if we broadened the scope to include less formal definition of war, then perhaps there have been instances of 'war' conducted consciously in the interests of the working class.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> If the Central Powers had won WWI, would 21st century counterfactuals speculate on the rise of Nazism? It was an outside shot at best surely?


We have no way of knowing. Fascism in Italy and Spain weren't predicated on the first war.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> We have no way of knowing. Fascism in Italy and Spain weren't predicated on the first war.


Nazism was though and its specificities were somewhat different to Italian/Spanish fascism. As I say, its rise in the form that it took was such a long shot that our counterfactual counterfactual speculators would find it hard to imagine imho. Which makes our attempts at counterfactual speculation look more than a little lost


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I suppose it depends on the classification of war, really. If we're talking exclusively of formal wars declared between sovereign states, then no. But if we broadened the scope to include less formal definition of war, then perhaps there have been instances of 'war' conducted consciously in the interests of the working class.


i'm thinking of wars between nations, although there is always at least an undercurrent of class conflict within any war.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Nazism was though and its specificities were somewhat different to Italian/Spanish fascism. As I say, its rise in the form that it took was such a long shot that our counterfactual counterfactual speculators would find it hard to imagine imho. Which makes our attempts at counterfactual speculation look more than a little lost


fascism did not spring from nowhere, rather emerging from currents which had been about in some cases for many years. the life of d'annunnzio, for example, shows how many of the tropes developed by mussolini had been extant for years before the first world war. nor was fascism found solely on the continent - there's reports of fascist activity in hackney at least as far back as 1926. the first world war likely accelerated the development of fascism than led to its emergence.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

I still reckon Germany was stitched up . The Allies were just itching to get stuck into them at the first opportunity .


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fascism did not spring from nowhere, rather emerging from currents which had been about in some cases for many years. the life of d'annunnzio, for example, shows how many of the tropes developed by mussolini had been extant for years before the first world war.


I'm not really disagreeing with you


----------



## likesfish (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one thing ive rarely seen is any stories about the Brits good mates and allies at the time, the japanese .


  The Japanese were respected and known for treating pows humanely they only went truly batshit in the20s by the time they started in on the chinese they were mostly deeply insane.

The nazis may havebeen bad and mad but they tended not to try to assianate each others generals and didnt treat their men so badly that german soldiers preferred to be treated by pow medics than their own side


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I still reckon Germany was stitched up . The Allies were just itching to get stuck into them at the first opportunity .


No, I don't think the German ruling class was innocent. Queen Victoria's grandchildren having a family quarrel, nobody was innocent there


----------



## LiamO (Jan 1, 2014)

I 'studied' some old wanky literature of the 'Howard's End' variety at College that was published in (I think) 1909 (though it may have been 1911). In it an english and german fella (brothers-in-law or something like that) were casually debating the upcoming War between britain and germany, who would cause it and who would win it. Years _before_ it had happened.

I found all this a little hard to reconcile with the narrative I was taught at school about it all happening all of a sudden when some arcduke got shot in the balkans.

Mind you I also remember reading in the 80's that all the wars of the 21st century would be Resource based and that Islam would take the place of the pesky Ruskies as the bete noir of the West.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I 'studied' some old wanky literature of the 'Howard's End' variety at College that was published in (I think) 1909 (though it may have been 1911). In it an english and german fella (brothers-in-law or something like that) were casually debating the upcoming War between britain and germany, who would cause it and who would win it. Years _before_ it had happened.
> 
> I found all this a little hard to reconcile with the narrative I was taught at school about it all happening all of a sudden when some arcduke got shot in the balkans.
> 
> Mind you I also remember reading in the 80's that all the wars of the 21st century would be Resource based and that Islam would take the place of the pesky Ruskies as the bete noir of the West.


yes, the corpus of 'next great war' stories from the 1870s on is well known.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tale-Great-...qid=1388597786&sr=1-2&keywords=next+great+war


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

LiamO said:


> I 'studied' some old wanky literature of the 'Howard's End' variety at College that was published in (I think) 1909 (though it may have been 1911). In it an english and german fella (brothers-in-law or something like that) were casually debating the upcoming War between britain and germany, who would cause it and who would win it. Years _before_ it had happened.
> 
> I found all this a little hard to reconcile with the narrative I was taught at school about it all happening all of a sudden when some arcduke got shot in the balkans.
> 
> Mind you I also remember reading in the 80's that all the wars of the 21st century would be Resource based and that Islam would take the place of the pesky Ruskies as the bete noir of the West.


It was coming for quite some time, yeah. Germany's rise as a sea power to challenge Britain, late arrival on the Imperial scene and thus having to pick up the scraps left behind by Britain and France and general sabre rattling weren't going to go unchallenged by the other Imperial powers. Add to that the aftermath of the 1870 defeat of France by Prussia/Germany and simmering resentments etc resulting, it was obvious what would happen. Only questions was where the spark would be, though in hindsight, the Balkans was flaming obvious too.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what seems to have been argued by e.g. athos is that the great slaughter of working class people was not in the interests of the working class. i cannot think of a war which has been declared by a government which has been declared to be in the interests of the working class, or which has been objectively in the interests of the working class in the ways i believe athos to mean.



So we agree then.




Pickman's model said:


> In this case, saying that the first world war was not in the interests of the working class due to working class people being killed in it is facile and banal.



Except that's a caricature of the point I made; I explained that it wasn't just because working class people died that meant it wasn't in their interests.  The cost is only part of the equation, you also have to consider the benefits; the workers were never going to receive a share of the spoils of an imperialistic war commensurate with their losses.




Pickman's model said:


> Would the working class have been better off if britain had sat out the first world war? was the fall of the kaiser not in the interests of the working class?



This is predicated on false dichotomies e.g. the notion that 'sitting out' WWI would have necessarily entailed the maintenance of the status quo, or that the war was the only way to bring about the fall of the Kaiser.




Pickman's model said:


> What I would have liked to see would have been a more nuanced discussion of what the interests of the working class were...



Me too.  So tell us what you think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> Except that's a caricature of the point I made; I explained that it wasn't just because working class people died that meant it wasn't in their interests.  The cost is only part of the equation, you also have to consider the benefits; the workers were never going to receive a share of the spoils of an imperialistic war commensurate with their losses.


can you name a war of comparable length and / or scale in which 'the workers' received 'a share of the spoils of an imperialistic war commensurate with their losses'? who are 'the workers'? you seem to use the term equally for the international working class, and (as it appears here) for the british working class. you're all over the shop. if the british workers had received benefits commensurate with their losses then german workers or indian workers or african workers would have lost out. you seem to me rather keener on the metropole than the periphery. why is this?


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> can you name a war of comparable length and / or scale in which 'the workers' received 'a share of the spoils of an imperialistic war commensurate with their losses'? who are 'the workers'?



No.  And?




Pickman's model said:


> you seem to use the term equally for the international working class, and (as it appears here) for the british working class. you're all over the shop.



Not at all.  I said from the start that I was talking about the workers of Britain and Germany (and clarified in a susbsequent post that this was an over-simplification, and that I should have referred to the workers from all countries involved).




Pickman's model said:


> if the british workers had received benefits commensurate with their losses then german workers or indian workers or african workers would have lost out.



Which rather supports the central thrust of what I was saying i.e. that workers were always bound to lose.




Pickman's model said:


> you seem to me rather keener on the metropole than the periphery. why is this?



Not at all.  See above.


I wonder if we're not that far apart, now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> No.  And?


right. so the point you claim to be making is indeed a banal and facile one. next.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> right. so the point you claim to be making is indeed a banal and facile one. next.



How so?  The fact that wars between sttes are rarely in the interests of workers is no reason not to point this out in the specific context of WWI, in an attempt to counter the myths that will inevitably be peddled about that conflict, this year.  Which, after all, is the whole context of this thread.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> It was coming for quite some time, yeah. Germany's rise as a sea power to challenge Britain, late arrival on the Imperial scene and thus having to pick up the scraps left behind by Britain and France and general sabre rattling weren't going to go unchallenged by the other Imperial powers. Add to that the aftermath of the 1870 defeat of France by Prussia/Germany and simmering resentments etc resulting, it was obvious what would happen. Only questions was where the spark would be, though in hindsight, the Balkans was flaming obvious too.



it wasnt just its rise as a sea power but as an economic power . It was threatening profits .


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

DP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> How so?  The fact that wars are rarely in the interests of workers is no reason not to point this out in the context of WWI, in an attempt to counter the myths that will inevitably be peddled about that conflict, this year.  Which, after all, is the whole context of this thread.


banal: your point is so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring;
facile: your point is superficial. it does not address any of the complexities of the war and of the working class experience of the war.

next.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> it wasnt just its rise as a sea power but as an economic power . It was threatening profits .


Of course, the one begat the other and so forth


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

DP.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> banal: your point is so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring;
> facile: your point is superficial. it does not address any of the complexities of the war and of the working class experience of the war.
> 
> next.



So tell us what you think. What's with the constant provocation? I don't know if you laid out your views on everything 10 years ago and I missed it but I don't know what you think about anything other than you really, really, really hate the SWP and you really, really, really like correct grammar.

I'm interested in what you think. Why don't you tell us?


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

DP.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> banal: your point is so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring;
> facile: your point is superficial. it does not address any of the complexities of the war and of the working class experience of the war.
> 
> next.



It might seem obvious to you (and me), but it's not obvious to people who are less used to thinking in terms of class, and more to thinking in terms of nationality. In fact, it was not obvious to those posters in response to whose questions I made the comments which attracted your attention! And, if the point was that obvious, why were you so keen to put me to proof on it? You seem to be shifting your position (which you refused to clearly state, in any event).

Also you have ignored the context of this thread i.e. about countering the myths that the mainstream media will peddle in this centenary year.

And, despite being repeatedly asked for your thoughts, you've declined to shed any light on the complexities of working class experience of the war - preferring instead to carp about others' posts.

Next.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

I think once you had a situation were you had a well educated German working class, superior German products and production techniques , more modern efficient and the like, cutting into the older players profit margins, combined with the British empires inability as a net exporter to engage in protectionism , then other means to take the krauts down were inevitable. Not that the germans were virtuous innocents , but that it was really an act of gangsterism on a massive scale .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> It might seem obvious to you (and me), but it's not obvious to people who are less used to thinking in terms of class, and more to thinking in terms of nationality.  In fact, it was not obvious to those posters in response to whose questions I made the comments which attracted your attention!  And you have ignored the context of this thread i.e. about countering the myths that the mainstream media will peddle in this centenary year.
> 
> And, despite being repeatedly asked for your thoughts, you've declined to shed any light on the complexities of working class experience of the war - preferring instead to carp about others' posts.
> 
> Next.


it is obvious as it is a commonplace about the first world war that conscripts were told there'd be homes fit for heroes: which there weren't. the general image of the first world war in popular culture has all the old cliches referred to on this thread in it, the lions led by donkeys, the old lie about dulce et decorum est - and of course homes fit for heroes. if you ask most people - certainly those who can recall blackadder goes forth - you'll not get many people buying into the sort of ideas which have so agitated you. can you give me one example of anyone claiming that the war was fought for the working class? is there indeed any evidence of anyone spreading the myth which has so exercised you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I think once you had a situation were you had a well educated German working class, superior German products and production techniques , more modern efficient and the like, cutting into the older players profit margins, combined with the British empires inability as a net exporter to engage in protectionism , then other means to take the krauts down were inevitable. Not that the germans were virtuous innocents , but that it was really an act of gangsterism on a massive scale .


what, declaring war on germany after germany had declared war on france (and belgium, see treaty of london 1830)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 1, 2014)

I recall reading about the shock amongst medical staff clearing volunteers for service in WW1 at just how malnourished and suffering from concomitant ailments and poorly healed injuries a lot of the city & rural poor were. Still fucking signed them as fit for duty though eh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> So tell us what you think. What's with the constant provocation? I don't know if you laid out your views on everything 10 years ago and I missed it but I don't know what you think about anything other than you really, really, really hate the SWP and you really, really, really like correct grammar.
> 
> I'm interested in what you think. Why don't you tell us?


i don't care about the swp. i hated them 10 years ago but haven't posted so much about them recently.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I think once you had a situation were you had a well educated German working class, superior German products and production techniques , more modern efficient and the like, cutting into the older players profit margins, combined with the British empires inability as a net exporter to engage in protectionism , then other means to take the krauts down were inevitable. Not that the germans were virtuous innocents , but that it was really an act of gangsterism on a massive scale .


Germany really weren't unwilling participants


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it is obvious as it is a commonplace about the first world war that conscripts were told there'd be homes fit for heroes: which there weren't. the general image of the first world war in popular culture has all the old cliches referred to on this thread in it, the lions led by donkeys, the old lie about dulce et decorum est - and of course homes fit for heroes. if you ask most people - certainly those who can recall blackadder goes forth - you'll not get many people buying into the sort of ideas which have so agitated you. can you give me one example of anyone claiming that the war was fought for the working class? is there indeed any evidence of anyone spreading the myth which has so exercised you?



I've never claimed anyone is spreading the myth that WWI was in the interests of the working class.  The myth I referred to was the idea that interests were based in nationality rather than class.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

you arent seriously suggesting germany declared war on france for no reason


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> I've never claimed anyone is spreading the myth that WWI was in the interests of the working class.  The myth I referred to was the idea that interests were based in nationality rather than class.


i'll ask once more: "is there indeed any evidence of anyone spreading the myth which has so exercised you?"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> you arent seriously suggesting germany declared war on france for no reason


i thought that you didn't stoop to the tactic of putting words in people's mouths.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought that you didn't stoop to the tactic of putting words in people's mouths.



no, thats why the_ not seriously _bit is in there


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> you arent seriously suggesting germany declared war on france for no reason


I'm suggesting that they were more than happy to have a showdown with the other Imperial powers regardless of the Entente's intentions


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> no, thats why the_ not seriously _bit is in there


i've long been under the impression that the events of august 1914 were immediately precipitated by the system of alliances, although the causes of the war were rather deeper. it's like a pub fight: the actual spark can be one thing but there may well be more to it than immediately meets the eye.


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i've long been under the impression that the events of august 1914 were immediately precipitated by the system of alliances, although the causes of the war were rather deeper. it's like a pub fight: the actual spark can be one thing but there may well be more to it than immediately meets the eye.


Germany were spoiling for a fight and delighted to seize on the chance once their mates in Vienna got into a scrap. Everyone who got involved on some piffling pretext had been dogging each other up for some time


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll ask once more: "is there indeed any evidence of anyone spreading the myth which has so exercised you?"



Do you mean the myth you'd like think exercises me, or the one that does?

The myth that 'the British' had a homogeneous interest, and that it was opposed to the homogeneous interest of 'the Germans' (and each sides' respective allies) is axiomatic in most of the official narrative of WWI.  And, what's more it's carried through into modern conflicts e.g. the whole 'Help for Heroes' movement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Germany were spoiling for a fight and delighted to seize on the chance once their mates in Vienna got into a scrap. Everyone who got involved on some piffling pretext had been dogging each other up for some time


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>


I think I may have been misunderstood somewhere


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

I really dont like the sound of german doggers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> Do you mean the myth you'd like think exercises me, or the one that does?


pedantry alive and well i see. but, as my old chemistry teacher said, it helps to read the question



> The myth that 'the British' had a homogeneous interest, and that it was opposed to the homogeneous interest of 'the Germans' (and each sides' respective allies) is axiomatic in most of the official narrative of WWI.  And, what's more it's carried through into modern conflicts e.g. the whole 'Help for Heroes' movement.


so what you're going to be doing then is to offer a complete narrative in opposition to the official version.


----------



## co-op (Jan 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall reading about the shock amongst medical staff clearing volunteers for service in WW1 at just how malnourished and suffering from concomitant ailments and poorly healed injuries a lot of the city & rural poor were. Still fucking signed them as fit for duty though eh.




Still the case in WW2. 

One of the things that stood out to me about a (once famous) book called The Naked Island by an Aussie, Russell Braddon about life as a POW of the Japanese in WW2 was the sense of shock that went round the ANZAC POWs when the first ANZAC died in a camp (of starvation or disease, can't remember now which). If Aussies and Kiwis were dying then things were getting serious - the Brits had been dropping like flies from the off because they were so much weaker and worse-nourished.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 1, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> The article is about the famous Kitchener poster, which a research historian claims never existed i.e. did the poster exist?


Sorry, I don't think I saw the link at the time for some reason.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pedantry alive and well i see. but, as my old chemistry teacher said, it helps to read the question
> 
> so what you're going to be doing then is to offer a complete narrative in opposition to the official version.



No.  I never claimed that I would be offering a complete narrative.  All I did was answer a question from another poster about what sort of myths are likely to be peddled as part of the establishment line, during the centenary year.  I neither understand why you took umbrage with that, nor where you're hoping to go with it, now.  It seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it.  And, what's more, you're not even doing so by saying something yourself, but rather than sniping at what I say.  What do you think bout this?  Do you have a point to make?


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I really dont like the sound of german doggers


Not to worry, whilst German Bight is next to Dogger, they are not in fact the same region


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> No.  I never claimed that I would be offering a complete narrative.  All I did was answer a question from another poster about what sort of myths are likely to be peddled as part of the establishment line, during the centenary year.  I neither understand why you took umbrage with that, nor where you're hoping to go with it, now.  It seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it.  And, what's more, you're not even doing so by saying something yourself, but rather than sniping at what I say.  What do you think bout this?  Do you have a point to make?


my point is that if you are aiming to challenge a myth - or to assist in the challenging of a myth - which pervades the official narrative then you will need to provide a counter-narrative as a corrective. if you aren't going to do this yourself the least you can do is suggest an already prepared one. from the tenor of your post you've not been reading my posts with the assiduity you would have me take over yours.


----------



## toggle (Jan 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall reading about the shock amongst medical staff clearing volunteers for service in WW1 at just how malnourished and suffering from concomitant ailments and poorly healed injuries a lot of the city & rural poor were. Still fucking signed them as fit for duty though eh.



wheras they turned a fair few away in 1900. lot of fuss was made then about how many were turned away.noting fucking changed though. just twits like baden powell thinking the long term ill effects of poverty could be eradicated by godly exercise and running about with a map and compass, then these poor brits could have outfought the commandos. 




Pickman's model said:


> what, declaring war on germany after germany had declared war on france (and belgium, see treaty of london 1830)



ah yes, how belgium became the good guys again....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> wheras they turned a fair few away in 1900. lot of fuss was made then about how many were turned away.noting fucking changed though. just twits like baden powell thinking the long term ill effects of poverty could be eradicated by godly exercise and running about with a map and compass, then these poor brits could have outfought the commandos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's only comparatively recently that height stopped being a good indicator of social class.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> my point is that if you are aiming to challenge a myth - or to assist in the challenging of a myth - which pervades the official narrative then you will need to provide a counter-narrative as a corrective. if you aren't going to do this yourself the least you can do is suggest an already prepared one.



I have suggested a counter narrative (albeit in little more than outline).  You initially appeared to suggest that you didn't agree with it.  Then you seemed to shift your position - claiming that it wasn't that you disagreed with it, but rather that it was too obvious.  But what you've signally failed to do is offer any counter-narrative of your own, despite being asked many times.  However, I'll ask again: what do you think?  What narrative do you offer for class interests in WWI?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 1, 2014)

Athos said:


> I have suggested a counter narrative (albeit in little more than outline).  You initially appeared to suggest that you didn't agree with it.  Then you seemed to shift your position - claiming that it wasn't that you disagreed with it, but rather that it was too obvious.  But what you've signally failed to do is offer any counter-narrative of your own, despite being asked many times.  However, I'll ask again: what do you think?  What narrative do you offer for class interests in WWI?


to my mind a good corrective would be simply to go to the archive and have a look at local newspapers from 1914-1918. people topping themselves because of air raids. people mugging canadian soldiers and going down the west end as they'd be treated in the bars. men using all manner of excuses to evade military service. sadly there's no counterpart - as far as i know - to angus calder's 'the people's war' about the second world war.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> to my mind a good corrective would be simply to go to the archive and have a look at local newspapers from 1914-1918. people topping themselves because of air raids. people mugging canadian soldiers and going down the west end as they'd be treated in the bars. men using all manner of excuses to evade military service. sadly there's no counterpart - as far as i know - to angus calder's 'the people's war' about the second world war.



Fair enough.  I agree that an accurate portrayal of the daily lives of working class people is part of the solution to the problem of myth making around WWI (albeit that reference to local papers seems a little too focused on the metropole - ).  But I also think that there's some value in spreading the idea  - albeit one that's obvious to you - that interests lay in classes rather than nationalities, in the context of WWI (and building on that, to demonstrate its continued significance).


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Point of accuracy: it's Kitchener, not Haig. Kitchener was the one who butchered his way across Africa in the 19th century, culminating with the deaths of 26,000 or so Boer men, women and children in the South African concentration camps
> 
> If you mean the 1973 Thames TV series, that was about WWII
> 
> Anyway, not disagreeing with your general feelings obv



No there was definately some TV programmes about the first world war too, think it was a Sunday afternoon series but can't really recall, it was in the late '60s definately pre '73 as I remember watching it with family as a kid. My dad recalled bit about the use of cavalry at Somme with grandad saying 'I did that'. Grandad died in 71.

Of course it is Kitchener on the coin, comment was about plans to put Haig on a coin too. There is a big pompous statue of him on Whitehall - he was definitely a 'donkey'


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> Id be interested in hearing more about the anti consciption campaigns in Britain if anyones any useful info . The Irish campaign is pretty well documented but ive heard very little about the British one .



A not terribly deep starting point that may be useful anyway:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/antiwar.htm


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> No there was definately some TV programmes about the first world war too, think it was a Sunday afternoon series but can't really recall, it was in the late '60s definately pre '73 as I remember watching it with family as a kid. My dad recalled bit about the use of cavalry at Somme with grandad saying 'I did that'. Grandad died in 71.
> 
> Of course it is Kitchener on the coin, comment was about plans to put Haig on a coin too. There is a big pompous statue of him on Whitehall - he was definitely a 'donkey'


Probably The Great War, BBC 26 parter from 1964 then. Not seen it, would appreciate any comments from people who have

Was unaware of any plans for Haig, apols if I misunderstood


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

cheers

was reading once about some miners strike, think it was wales, were martial law was proclaimed..or something like that


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> cheers
> 
> was reading once about some miners strike, think it was wales, were martial law was proclaimed..or something like that


http://www.num.org.uk/page/History-NumHistory-Miners-And-The-War


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 1, 2014)

2014 is also the 300th anniversary of the ascension of Georg Ludwig to the throne of Great Britain and Ireland, the start of the Hanoverian period. Wunderbar.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 1, 2014)

heres an article from JC on the 1915 TUC congress, another shameful moment in the lefts betrayal  of the British..and European..working class

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1915/09/poorirsh.htm


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 1, 2014)

It hardly matters whether promising the working class a land fit for heroes was a promise to the working class. I dare say it was a promise made to all. The point is that as with all such wars, it's the working class who are the victims. Even if there weren't more killed, which in terms of numbers is unarguable, the rewards of the conflict were granted to the working class only as a function of whatever outcome happened to leave them more or less fortunate than workers in other lands.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Probably The Great War, BBC 26 parter from 1964 then. Not seen it, would appreciate any comments from people who have



I could well have been that - but if I remembered it it was probably repeated later in '60s. I seem to recall it was similar format to the 'World at War', that came later - in that it had interviews with ordinary soldiers, photographs and films from the time.

Quick on line search shows that BBC are planning on incorporating it and its unused footage in its programmes re WW1 over the next 4 years. I thought the Ian Hislop programmes from a few years ago 'Not Forgotten' were quite interesting - in tellling ordinary peoples stories


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

bbc remit for local coverage is apparently focusing on the less told stories and to ensure they discuss the levels of opposition. IDK how well they will do on that, but round here, some of the topics seem interesting.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> It hardly matters whether promising the working class a land fit for heroes was a promise to the working class. I dare say it was a promise made to all. The point is that as with all such wars, it's the working class who are the victims. Even if there weren't more killed, which in terms of numbers is unarguable, the rewards of the conflict were granted to the working class only as a function of whatever outcome happened to leave them more or less fortunate than workers in other lands.



Churchill before WW1 spoke in the House of Commons about his solution to class war, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State." Some Tories possibly saw the slaughter as a postive thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Churchill before WW1 spoke in the House of Commons about his solution to class war, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State." Some Tories possibly saw the slaughter as a postive thing?


yeh it did wonders for churchill's career


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it did wonders for churchill's career



Some still have similar attitudes today. The Tories would like those involved in the trade union movement to disappear. The main issue is possibly that humanity fails to learn anything from its mistakes. We continue to repeat past destructive behaviour? Possibly a dysfunctional education system and a genetic/instinctive disconnect between generations?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Churchill before WW1 spoke in the House of Commons about his solution to class war, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State." Some Tories possibly saw the slaughter as a postive thing?



Churchill also brought the minimum wage to the UK in 1909 with the Trade Boards Act.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Churchill also brought the minimum wage to the UK in 1909 with the Trade Boards Act.



Why did he do that, d'you think?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 2, 2014)

peterkro said:


> You made a ludicrous claim,back it up.


Sass make a bullshit claim then run away when people bull him up on it, never!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why did he do that, d'you think?



Hard to know his motivations; but the result was a positive development for people working at the lowest end of the pay scale.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Some still have similar attitudes today. The Tories would like those involved in the trade union movement to disappear. The main issue is possibly that humanity fails to learn anything from its mistakes. We continue to repeat past destructive behaviour? Possibly a dysfunctional education system and a genetic/instinctive disconnect between generations?



Why is the fact that some Tories hold that attitude an example of humanity's mistakes?  It's just a reflection of class interests.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to know his motivations; but the result was a positive development for people working at the lowest end of the pay scale.



Or a way to enclose trade unions within the administrative mechanism of the state.  Something that was to the longer-term detriment of workers.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> to my mind a good corrective would be simply to go to the archive and have a look at local newspapers from 1914-1918. people topping themselves because of air raids. people mugging canadian soldiers and going down the west end as they'd be treated in the bars. men using all manner of excuses to evade military service. sadly there's no counterpart - as far as i know - to angus calder's 'the people's war' about the second world war.



That sounds very interesting but looking at primary sources isn't something I have time to do. It seems like you're saying that unless you can put the work in to do a proper job of research and creating a counter-narrative you have no business saying anything.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Churchill also brought the minimum wage to the UK in 1909 with the Trade Boards Act.



Winston Churchil 1903  “I am an English Liberal. I hate the Tory Party, their men, their words and their methods.” 

His career was a tad irrational, even bizarre with some very odd statements and  beliefs that could suggest some illness like schizophrenia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Winston Churchil 1903  “I am an English Liberal. I hate the Tory Party, their men, their words and their methods.”
> 
> His career was a tad irrational, even bizarre with some very odd statements and  beliefs that could suggest some illness like schizophrenia.


so why are you associating him with the tory party while he was not in the tory party?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> That sounds very interesting but looking at primary sources isn't something I have time to do. It seems like you're saying that unless you can put the work in to do a proper job of research and creating a counter-narrative you have no business saying anything.


no, it doesn't.

next.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why is the fact that some Tories hold that attitude an example of humanity's mistakes?  It's just a reflection of class interests.



Today I would guess the Tories would claim the class issue does not exist or is some myth created by the far left? To me this suggests they have learnt nothing from past mistakes.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Today I would guess the Tories would claim the class issue does not exist or is some myth created by the far left? To me this suggests they have learnt nothing from past mistakes.



It's not the Tories who are mistaken; it's the working class people who've bought the myth that we're all middle class now who have missed the point.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it doesn't.
> 
> next.



I'm not sure you can tell me how it seems from my perspective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not sure you can tell me how it seems from my perspective.


given that you're not in fact saying anything and do not appear to have constructed a counter-narrative it doesn't matter much what i say as you look like you've no intention of putting together a narrative, counter- or otherwise.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so why are you associating him with the tory party while he was not in the tory party?



The Tories deselected him. This must have had a big impact on his inner phcyhe? So the next best thing was to become a Liberal and like any body involved in Politics he certainly knew how to talk the talk!


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> It's not the Tories who are mistaken; it's the working class people who've bought the myth that we're all middle class now who have missed the point.



I agree with that, albeit I think the working class as in those on low pay, living in poverty etc..   still do not exist in the Tories mindset? Going off topic a tad now but recent speeches and exchanges by Cameron would suggest parts of society do not exist as he plays up the economic situation


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> The Tories deselected him. This must have had a big impact on his inner phcyhe? So the next best thing was to become a Liberal and like any body involved in Politics he certainly knew how to talk the talk!


and? 


stowpirate said:


> Churchill before WW1 spoke in the House of Commons about his solution to class war, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State." Some Tories possibly saw the slaughter as a postive thing?


what's this all about then? why are you seemingly conflating churchill and the tories? and he didn't declare that to the house of commons, but in a letter: see p. 174 of roy jenkins' book on churchill, available online.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and?
> what's this all about then? why are you seemingly conflating churchill and the tories? and he didn't declare that to the house of commons, but in a letter: see p. 174 of roy jenkins' book on churchill, available online.



There is conflicting information online which suggests otherwise. So it might have been in a letter or to the house? Not sure what you mean with conflating churchill and the tories?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> There is conflicting information online which suggests otherwise.


the quote does not appear in hansard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> So it might have been in a letter or to the house? Not sure what you mean with conflating churchill and the tories?


google the quote and look in jenkins' book, which appears as one of the results.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> given that you're not in fact saying anything and do not appear to have constructed a counter-narrative it doesn't matter much what i say as you look like you've no intention of putting together a narrative, counter- or otherwise.



I asked you to share your understanding.

What a little prick you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I asked you to share your understanding.
> 
> What a little prick you are.


you didn't ask me 'to share my understanding', you said that i was dismissing anyone who didn't have time to go to the archive.

next.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you didn't ask me 'to share my understanding', you said that i was dismissing anyone who didn't have time to go to the archive.
> 
> next.



I asked you what you thought. Twice. Post 201.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I asked you what you thought. Twice. Post 201.


and while i've moved on since then you seem to have gone backwards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> it wasnt just its rise as a sea power but as an economic power . It was threatening profits .


Let's see some figures please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

redcat i suppose you could have a look at arthur marwick's 'the deluge' as a starting point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> I think once you had a situation were you had a well educated German working class, superior German products and production techniques , more modern efficient and the like, cutting into the older players profit margins, combined with the British empires inability as a net exporter to engage in protectionism , then other means to take the krauts down were inevitable. Not that the germans were virtuous innocents , but that it was really an act of gangsterism on a massive scale .


Again, can we have some figures here please?


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> The Tories deselected him. This must have had a big impact on his inner phcyhe? So the next best thing was to become a Liberal and like any body involved in Politics he certainly knew how to talk the talk!



Chamberlain had enough influence (took him 20 years and the Boer war to get that)to start to push radical policies within the unionist coalition. and one of those policies was tarrif reform, an end to a longstanding national policy centered on free trade, which he wanted to use to fund pensions. Churchill was still a strong free trader, which the libs were still promoting and having made a pain in the arse of himself to the tories over refusing to support tarriff reform, it was natural for him to support the liberals. I don't think crossing the floor would have been a damaging experience to him, it was more common then.

and both parties supported reforming policies at that time, just different methods of achieving improvements in w/c life and different ways of paying for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Churchill before WW1 spoke in the House of Commons about his solution to class war, "there ought to be proper Labour Colonies where they could be sent for considerable periods and made to realize their duty to the State." Some Tories possibly saw the slaughter as a postive thing?


These were established in the 30s.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> These were established in the 30s.


 


Got a link?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Churchill also brought the minimum wage to the UK in 1909 with the Trade Boards Act.


Minimum wages - not a min wage. And please, do look at this and related contemporary initiatives in a wider context with a critical eye.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Got a link?


I'll find something when i have finished reading the thread. Freedom/Raven/Anarchy (can't remember which off top of head) published autobiographies and histories relating to them. Will get back to this shortly


----------



## likesfish (Jan 2, 2014)

The bizarrie thing about Germans rise as a naval power was it was bullshit.
 The much vaunted high seas fleet did very little during the war the battle of Jutland for all the suppoused supriority of the german fleet it was the one that went home and stayed home. Much like the german navy of ww2 hitlers battleships got sunk or hid in port.
  The germans have been more successful since world war two not playing military games just working hard building stuff people want to buy and slowly owning the rest of europe


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The bizarrie thing about Germans rise as a naval power was it was bullshit.
> The much vaunted high seas fleet did very little during the war the battle of Jutland for all the suppoused supriority of the german fleet it was the one that went home and stayed home. Much like the german navy of ww2 hitlers battleships got sunk or hid in port.
> The germans have been more successful since world war two not playing military games just working hard building stuff people want to buy and slowly owning the rest of europe


"plan c"


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The bizarrie thing about Germans rise as a naval power was it was bullshit.
> The much vaunted high seas fleet did very little during the war the battle of Jutland for all the suppoused supriority of the german fleet it was the one that went home and stayed home. Much like the german navy of ww2 hitlers battleships got sunk or hid in port.
> The germans have been more successful since world war two not playing military games just working hard building stuff people want to buy and slowly owning the rest of europe


Yes,and this myth mirrors the one abut the a mighty technically efficient hi-tech industrial economy eating incessantly into the profits of the established imperialist powers - the reality was a relatively backward industrial sector based on small scale production (family or single workshop based in many cases) using traditional (i.e old) production methods, and an even more backward agricultural sector based on basic work by hand by shoeless peasants justified by almost feudal relationships. Both ideas are utter nonsense and both myths used by those same imperialists states - madness that they took up such a central role in left-wings accounts of the war and the period. They are nonsense. And exactly the sort of myth the initiative i mentioned in my first post (but which i now notice i failed to include a link to) needs to be challenging.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Got a link?


Can't find the exact one i'm on about but here's the gun crazed ICG on it:

1929-1939: 25 Concentration Camps in England



> Between 1929 and 1939, under the government of the very socialist Ramsay MacDonald, 25 secret concentration camps were built in the most remote areas of England and more than 200,000 unemployed men were sent to these camps and put to work at hard labour. The men, who were interned in the centres for three-month periods, worked for up to nine hours a day, forced by gang marshalls to break stones, build roads and cut down trees (2). The Sunday Times reports that, when they arrived at the camps, the men were issued with hob-nailed boots and a pair of corduroy trousers before being assigned to a wooden hut dormitory. The men who refused to go to the camps were told their benefit would be stopped once and for all.
> 
> It was Sir MacDonald, vanguard socialist in the service of capital, who had this brilliant idea of submitting unemployed proletarians to 3 months of such hideous living conditions and slavery that they would never refuse a job again, even the most vile.



I think that is missing parts of the original article - maybe some sources too. I have a hard copy at home and can check it out tmw night if nothing else turns up.


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

bloody hell. 

i'd seen the discusions about that kind of thing some years earlier, but i wasn't aware it had been put into practice


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can't find the exact one i'm on about but here's the gun crazed ICG on it:
> 
> 1929-1939: 25 Concentration Camps in England
> 
> ...


 
Like Workfare (except accommodation was provided).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

anyway, returning to ww1: https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/05_7799_vol77_Elliott.pdf


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Got a link?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7842448.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7842448.stm


If i remember right, the camps were later used for conscientious objectors and naughty members of the military during WW2. Note that the TUC supported these camps (the work ones, not the CO ones).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> It was coming for quite some time, yeah. Germany's rise as a sea power to challenge Britain, late arrival on the Imperial scene and thus having to pick up the scraps left behind by Britain and France and general sabre rattling weren't going to go unchallenged by the other Imperial powers. Add to that the aftermath of the 1870 defeat of France by Prussia/Germany and simmering resentments etc resulting, it was obvious what would happen. Only questions was where the spark would be, though in hindsight, the Balkans was flaming obvious too.



Not helped by Russia's near-blind support (which did fluctuate, depending on who was in vogue, ministerially, obviously) of their "Slavic brothers", and the pro-Serb shite-stirring of the Russian ambassadorial class, or by Austro-Hungary's paranoia that Russia would use *any* Balkan conflict as a fulcrum to lever a foothold on the Turkish Straits through invading Bulgaria.

E2A:  Agadir came close to being an ignition poiint, too.


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If i remember right, the camps were later used for conscientious objectors and naughty members of the military during WW2. Note that the TUC supported these camps (the work ones, not the CO ones).



I was reading a couple of days ago that many of the earliest labour representatives tended to be very strong supporters of harsh measures against anyone perceived as too lazy to work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If i remember right, the camps were later used for conscientious objectors and naughty members of the military during WW2. Note that the TUC supported these camps (the work ones, not the CO ones).


on p85 of the pdf i link to above it says 





> The majority of objectors took up non-combatant duties as medical orderlies, serving
> in the catering corps or working in labour camps run by the Home Office.


so there were labour camps in ww1


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> it wasnt just its rise as a sea power but as an economic power . It was threatening profits .



The City of London whined quite a bit when imports of German goods surpassed those of British goods in Egypt in the early 1900s, but Germany didn't (yet) have a mercantile fleet capable of challenging Britain's foothold in the Americas or the colonies, and The City wouldn't have wanted them to have the opportunity to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall reading about the shock amongst medical staff clearing volunteers for service in WW1 at just how malnourished and suffering from concomitant ailments and poorly healed injuries a lot of the city & rural poor were. Still fucking signed them as fit for duty though eh.



Even legislated to allow "bantam" regts of volunteers too stunted by malnutrition to meet the height restriction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> on p85 of the pdf i link to above it says so there were labour camps in ww1


Yep - the writings of COs at the time paint a pretty brutal picture of the conditions and their treatment in them.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even legislated to allow "bantam" regts of volunteers too stunted by malnutrition to meet the height restriction.


 
Just how old is Atos?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 2, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-15640563

Harsh but fairly standard treatment for the time


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Germany really weren't unwilling participants



Wouldn't it be fairer to say that *some* elements of the German hierarchy (in which I won't include the ever-vacillatingand pathologically-unable to make up his mind Kaiser Bill) were willing to go to war, some because they saw it as the "easiest" way to assert German dominance, and others because they believed that unless they did so, an emerging modern Russia would eventually roll both Germany and Poland up completely, and that there was "no alternative" to pre-emptive mobilisation?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Germany were spoiling for a fight and delighted to seize on the chance once their mates in Vienna got into a scrap. Everyone who got involved on some piffling pretext had been dogging each other up for some time



Ah, you're an adherent of the "the Germans did it" school. Interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

How have we got this far without a mention of the fischer thesis?

Or actually challenging many myths


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hard to know his motivations; but the result was a positive development for people working at the lowest end of the pay scale.



Not really. That "minimum wage" wasn't legally-binding in any real sense, and also held down wages in a way that helped fuel the General Strike of '26, 17 years later.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> These were established in the 30s.



"The camps were run, in the main, by ex-service personnel and the regimes were both hard and draconian. As a result, many men did not stay the course, a period of 12 weeks where they worked 12 hour shifts, usually for six days a week. They slept in Nissen huts and received part of their unemployment benefit as pay. The rest, somewhere in the region of nine old shillings, was sent to their families."

Meant to be voluntary but I wonder if you had any choice?  As in you went to the camp or lost any benefit payments due? Needs more research to get at the truth?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

I know we're getting OT here and this stuff may be better on another thread, but there were also private labour colonies - including a large one ran by the sally army at Hadleigh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> "The camps were run, in the main, by ex-service personnel and the regimes were both hard and draconian. As a result, many men did not stay the course, a period of 12 weeks where they worked 12 hour shifts, usually for six days a week. They slept in Nissen huts and received part of their unemployment benefit as pay. The rest, somewhere in the region of nine old shillings, was sent to their families."
> 
> Meant to be voluntary but I wonder if you had any choice?  As in you went to the camp or lost any benefit payments due? Needs more research to get at the truth?


No, total coercion. Refuse and 100% sanctioned.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. That "minimum wage" wasn't legally-binding in any real sense, and also held down wages in a way that helped fuel the General Strike of '26, 17 years later.



That was a real own goal! 

"Gold Standard at pre-war parity with the dollar. This meant overvaluing the pound by 10%. The bosses of industry would have to make up this overvaluation by cutting costs. It would be workers wages and not bosses profits that would be slashed."

http://www.marxist.com/britain-1926-general-strike-revolution.htm


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, you're an adherent of the "the Germans did it" school. Interesting.


No I'm not and have said nothing of the sort


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Winston Churchil 1903  “I am an English Liberal. I hate the Tory Party, their men, their words and their methods.”
> 
> His career was a tad irrational, even bizarre with some very odd statements and  beliefs that could suggest some illness like schizophrenia.



His career only appears irrational if you look at it in terms of Churchill representing one side of the battle for parliamentary power.
He wasn't. He was interested in furthering British power for its and his own sake, just like Mosley was.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> No I'm not and have said nothing of the sort



And yet you said:
"Germany were spoiling for a fight and delighted to seize on the chance once their mates in Vienna got into a scrap. Everyone who got involved on some piffling pretext had been dogging each other up for some time"
mentioning Germany and Austria-Hungary's "motivations", while not going into the motivations of the other "participants".

Usually that sort of remark states a preference, whether consciously or unconciously.  My apologies if you feel I've misrepresented you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> No I'm not and have said nothing of the sort


you wanted to though.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Stating that Kaiser Wilhelm fancied a bundle with his imperial rivals does not mean that I think those rivals didn't equally fancy a scrap with him.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you wanted to though.


No


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Stating that Kaiser Wilhelm fancied a bundle with his imperial rivals does not mean that I think those rivals didn't equally fancy a scrap with him.


i thought you said germany started it


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you said germany started it


I did not. I don't need to explain that more than I have done, you're putting words in my mouth, as is VP


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> I did not. I don't need to explain that more than I have done, you're putting words in my mouth, as is VP


so you think germany didn't start it.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Well it certainly started


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Well it certainly started


so who started it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Stating that Kaiser Wilhelm fancied a bundle with his imperial rivals does not mean that I think those rivals didn't equally fancy a scrap with him.



Every opportunity Kaiser Bill had to back away from a fight, he took it.  he was a pathological armchair warrior, quick on taking big, desperate to back away if any of his generals took him at his word. A fair bit of private correspondence between Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas has emerged since the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as previously unknown diplomatic correspondence, that showed that Wilhelm, while an aggressive _Junker_isch gobshite, wasn't an adherent of the "lets have a bundle with our imperial rivals" school.  What was possibly his greatest error was feeling bound to provide Austria-Hungary with near-unconditional support.  Honour is a great thing, but not when the person to whom you have promised aid, alters their diplomatic strategy in anticipation of that aid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> I did not. I don't need to explain that more than I have done, you're putting words in my mouth, as is VP



No, I'm really not, I'm probing what you meant when you said: 
"Germany were spoiling for a fight and delighted to seize on the chance once their mates in Vienna got into a scrap. Everyone who got involved on some piffling pretext had been dogging each other up for some time"
because to me, that comes across as "stating a preference".


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so who started it?


OK, if you were to force me to plump for one single power, unbound by treaty etc etc, who could have just let stuff slide without bringing the whole lot down, I might be tempted to name Russia.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Every opportunity Kaiser Bill had to back away from a fight, he took it.  he was a pathological armchair warrior, quick on taking big, desperate to back away if any of his generals took him at his word. A fair bit of private correspondence between Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas has emerged since the fall of the Soviet Union, as well as previously unknown diplomatic correspondence, that showed that Wilhelm, while an aggressive _Junker_isch gobshite, wasn't an adherent of the "lets have a bundle with our imperial rivals" school.  What was possibly his greatest error was feeling bound to provide Austria-Hungary with near-unconditional support.  Honour is a great thing, but not when the person to whom you have promised aid, alters their diplomatic strategy in anticipation of that aid.


I'm interested in that, you have a link?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Well it certainly started



Of course it started, but why?
You mention "Germany were spoiling for a fight..." and Vienna (which means *nothing* to me), but not Serbian inroads in Albania, nor Russian re-armament and military infrastructure programmes that would allow them to mobilise at the Austro-Hungarian empires borders in less than a day, nor France's political and financial aid to Russia, nor any of the various power blocs' subtler links, and the influences they brought to bear.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> His career only appears irrational if you look at it in terms of Churchill representing one side of the battle for parliamentary power.
> He wasn't. He was interested in furthering British power for its and his own sake, just like Mosley was.



Even though on opposite sides of the fence it is interesting that Churchill freed the Mosleys from internment. Even a facsist who had the right connections could in War Time Britian get special treatment? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489956/Why-Churchill-freed-the-Mosleys.html

I wonder if when Mosley stated "You don't clear up a dungheap from underneath it." he was talking about himself.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I've already told you that, thusfar, I've found it impossible to access the sort of data that could justify you claim, (or otherwise). I was just interested to know from you what the "_*deal of justification" *_was for your contention that it was the upper and middle classes that, pro-rata, suffered the greatest losses in WWI.
> 
> From your reaction, above, I'm assuming that it was just your opinion. Which kinda begs the question about why someone might want to articulate such a view that appeared to seek to diminish the impact of the war on the working class.



Only a hard left lunatic, could have interpreted my comment as being derogatory to their beloved 'working class' (a class which I belong to.).

Of course there were more working class people killed in WWI than other social classes, there were more working class soldiers than of any other class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> OK, if you were to force me to plump for one single power, unbound by treaty etc etc, who could have just let stuff slide without bringing the whole lot down, I might be tempted to name Russia.



But there's the rub.  Russia *couldn't* have "let stuff slide", especially not after their utter humiliation and territorial losses in the Russo-Japanese war.  Letting stuff slide could have meant another attempted revolution, perhaps a fully successful one.  *Add* that to the improvement in Russian military preparedness and practice, and their superior access to basic war _materiel_ (neither Germany or Austro-Hungary having the sort of unalloyed access to metals, coal and oil that Russia had), and "letting stuff slide" not only wouldn't have happened, it barely figured in any deliberation, either.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course it started, but why?
> You mention "Germany were spoiling for a fight..." and Vienna (which means *nothing* to me), but not Serbian inroads in Albania, nor Russian re-armament and military infrastructure programmes that would allow them to mobilise at the Austro-Hungarian empires borders in less than a day, nor France's political and financial aid to Russia, nor any of the various power blocs' subtler links, and the influences they brought to bear.


Well no I don't, largely because I don't have time and I'm using an extremely broad brush to address some equally broad points being made. I obviously haven't made it clear that it was extremely bloody complicated, which it was, but I tend to assume that anyone with a grasp of history beyond putting black hats on one side and white hats on the other would know that.
But you have, which is nice, please continue. I'm always happy to read and be enlightened


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Only a hard left lunatic, could have interpreted my comment as being derogatory to their beloved 'working class' (a class which I belong to.).
> 
> Of course there were more working class people killed in WWI than other social classes, there were more working class soldiers than of any other class.


Why is why using %s or ratios is a wee bit silly.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> But there's the rub.  Russia *couldn't* have "let stuff slide", especially not after their utter humiliation and territorial losses in the Russo-Japanese war.  Letting stuff slide could have meant another attempted revolution, perhaps a fully successful one.  *Add* that to the improvement in Russian military preparedness and practice, and their superior access to basic war _materiel_ (neither Germany or Austro-Hungary having the sort of unalloyed access to metals, coal and oil that Russia had), and "letting stuff slide" not only wouldn't have happened, it barely figured in any deliberation, either.


Which rather illustrates the silliness of PM's pushing me into a corner with that one. I'm assuming he's on a wind up obviously


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm interested in that, you have a link?



Not to a net source, but Christopher Clark's recent book "The Sleepwalkers" goes into this, as do a couple of other recent academic books. It's well worth a read, if only for the copious references and bibliography.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

The system of internationally competitive capital started it (Various reasons why). Within that the German elite pushed it as far as they could up to and including war. I think a debate on the basis of some single identifiable starter, like a pub-fight, is probably not worth the candle.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it did wonders for churchill's career



A complex man Churchill. Someone who repeatedly recovered from fuck ups, that would have killed any future 'public' career for many. I've never quite been able to decide whether he was a serial incompetent, who ultimately benefited from the competency of those under him, or, a truly great and talented man.

He was PM when I was born, and it came as a surprise, when I later read that he had been involved in the Boer War. He was well over retirement age when he became PM in WWII.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> Which rather illustrates the silliness of PM's pushing me into a corner with that one. I'm assuming he's on a wind up obviously



Surely you're not suggesting that that's his M. O. ?


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not to a net source, but Christopher Clark's recent book "The Sleepwalkers" goes into this, as do a couple of other recent academic books. It's well worth a read, if only for the copious references and bibliography.


cheers


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely you're not suggesting that that's his M. O. ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> He was PM when I was born, and it came as a surprise, when I later read that he had been involved in the Boer War. He was well over retirement age when he became PM in WWII.


Is this true Pickman's? You kept that quiet.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 2, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> No there was definately some TV programmes about the first world war too, think it was a Sunday afternoon series but can't really recall, it was in the late '60s definately pre '73 as I remember watching it with family as a kid. My dad recalled bit about the use of cavalry at Somme with grandad saying 'I did that'. Grandad died in 71.
> 
> Of course it is Kitchener on the coin, comment was about plans to put Haig on a coin too. There is a big pompous statue of him on Whitehall - he was definitely a 'donkey'



Haig is reported as having answered, when asked 'will we win?', 'Yes, of course we will win, we have more men than they have'. An indicator I feel, that he would have been quite happy to lose men on a one for one basis, until the point of 'victory'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

So, what myths do people think are a) particularly prevalent and b) worth challenging?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 2, 2014)

Hi everyone, I've had even less internet access than I anticipated, and will for a few days to come. Will read whole thread early next week, but loads to think about even from the fraction I've read so far. Thanks.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, what myths do people think are a) particularly prevalent and b) worth challenging?


Clearly that of German war guilt


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can't find the exact one i'm on about but here's the gun crazed ICG on it:
> 
> 1929-1939: 25 Concentration Camps in England
> 
> ...


One of the camps mentioned is actually in Scotland (Glenbranter).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> One of the camps mentioned is actually in Scotland (Glenbranter).


Most of them seemed to be there and in Wales - the article is translated from Belgian to be fair to the authors.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, what myths do people think are a) particularly prevalent and b) worth challenging?



Doing a google search on the subject came up with this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...irst-World-War-poster-that-never-existed.html


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Doing a google search on the subject came up with this:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...irst-World-War-poster-that-never-existed.html


That's already been referenced and linked to on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> No there was definately some TV programmes about the first world war too, think it was a Sunday afternoon series but can't really recall, it was in the late '60s definately pre '73 as I remember watching it with family as a kid. My dad recalled bit about the use of cavalry at Somme with grandad saying 'I did that'. Grandad died in 71.
> 
> Of course it is Kitchener on the coin, comment was about plans to put Haig on a coin too. There is a big pompous statue of him on Whitehall - he was definitely a 'donkey'


because...

have you read anything about him or are you basing this donkeyness on a general impression you've received?


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> A complex man Churchill. Someone who repeatedly recovered from fuck ups, that would have killed any future 'public' career for many. I've never quite been able to decide whether he was a serial incompetent, who ultimately benefited from the competency of those under him, or, a truly great and talented man.


or both?


----------



## toggle (Jan 2, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Haig is reported as having answered, when asked 'will we win?', 'Yes, of course we will win, we have more men than they have'. An indicator I feel, that he would have been quite happy to lose men on a one for one basis, until the point of 'victory'.




and iirc, Kitchener was considered a good leader because he had a reputation for getting thigns done on the cheap.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Haig is reported as having answered, when asked 'will we win?', 'Yes, of course we will win, we have more men than they have'. An indicator I feel, that he would have been quite happy to lose men on a one for one basis, until the point of 'victory'.



That attitude was adopted by Curtis LeMay who was possibly the most dangerous individual of the Twentieth Century? Or was Douglas MacArthur a worse threat to humanity, he was removed from command  because he wanted to Nuke the North Koreans/China. You cannot really take WW1 in isolation as it's repercussions are still felt to this day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> That attitude was adopted by Curtis LeMay who was possibly the most dangerous individual of the Twentieth Century? Or was Douglas MacArthur a worse threat to humanity, he was removed from command. You cannot really take WW1 in isolation as it's repercussions are still felt bto this day.


so hitler wasn't the most dangerous individual of the twentieth century. or mao or stalin or nixon or kruschev or lenin or the kaiser or churchill...

curtis lemay. and how many people did he kill?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> redcat i suppose you could have a look at arthur marwick's 'the deluge' as a starting point.



Thank you. That looks interesting. I see it has a preface by Joanna Bourke who I'm familiar with from Birkbeck.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so hitler wasn't the most dangerous individual of the twentieth century. or mao or stalin or nixon or kruschev or lenin or the kaiser or churchill...
> 
> curtis lemay. and how many people did he kill?



A few million.

Interesting quotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> A few million.
> 
> Interesting quotes:
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay


where do you get this 'a few million' from?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> because...
> 
> have you read anything about him or are you basing this donkeyness on a general impression you've received?



see post 114. I was quoting my dad who was probably quoting someone else. Nothing I've read has contradicted the impression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> see post 114. I was quoting my dad who was probably quoting someone else. Nothing I've read has contradicted the impression.


what have you read? would you say haig was more or less of a donkey than e.g. sir john french?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, what myths do people think are a) particularly prevalent and b) worth challenging?



Good question.

I suppose there are some on here who could give a good account of this historiography, but I had the impression that the OP was a kind of 'heads-up' to counter any ideological advantage that the tories and their media might seek to make of the anniversary of 1914. I can well imagine that figures like Gove would seek to use any commemoration for ideological purposes. 

I was interested in your post about the network of radical history groups already organising around this topic; had you intended to include a link?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Good question.
> 
> I suppose there are some on here who could give a good account of this historiography, but I had the impression that the OP was a kind of 'heads-up' to counter any ideological advantage that the tories and their media might seek to make of the anniversary of 1914. I can well imagine that figures like Gove would seek to use any commemoration for ideological purposes.
> 
> I was interested in your post about the network of radical history groups already organising around this topic; had you intended to include a link?


I had and is now in my later post. The network is up and running.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. That "minimum wage" wasn't legally-binding in any real sense, and also held down wages in a way that helped fuel the General Strike of '26, 17 years later.



The creation of the minimum wage, along with other reforms brought in by the Liberal govt. of the day - of which Churchill was a member - has been noted by a number of commentators as being one of the foundations in the establishment of the Welfare State.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Or a way to enclose trade unions within the administrative mechanism of the state.  Something that was to the longer-term detriment of workers.



Do you think workers would be better off today if there were no minimum wage?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you think workers would be better off today if there were no minimum wage?



What this thread needs now is a series of irrelevant inept and historically ill-informed leading questions. Luckily, we know just the man.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> where do you get this 'a few million' from?



Wiki estimates vary between 241,000 and 900,000 killed for the Air Raids on Japan.  That is before you look at the Korean & Vietnam wars which appear to have estimates from a few hundred thousand to five or six million. He had his finger on the button for the first half of the cold war!

Dr. Strangelove black comedy with General Jack D. Ripper being based on Curtis LeMay I think really sums this individual up and US foreign policy at the time.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 2, 2014)

Surely there are better sources of figures for this topic than wiki?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The creation of the minimum wage, along with other reforms brought in by the Liberal govt. of the day - of which Churchill was a member - has been noted by a number of commentators as being one of the foundations in the establishment of the Welfare State.



The establishment of the *principle* of a minimum wage was, certainly.  The idea was "radical" insofar as the ruling class actually paid some attention to it (although the concept of a minimum wage was, of course centuries older), but the actual "minimum wage" that was instituted, and the controls on it - they led to at least a further 30 years of empty bellies.  It wasn't until post-Beveridge (so, after '42) that a "minimum wage" resembled anything like a "*liveable* minimum wage".  In some parts of the UK, for example, the minimum wage meant a net loss to each individual miner in some coalfields.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What this thread needs now is a series of irrelevant inept and historically ill-informed leading questions. Luckily, we know just the man.



Rotten fucker! Just snorted half a mug of English Breakfast out of my nose!


----------



## likesfish (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so hitler wasn't the most dangerous individual of the twentieth century. or mao or stalin or nixon or kruschev or lenin or the kaiser or churchill...
> 
> curtis lemay. and how many people did he kill?



Hitler and mao didnt plan to fight and win a nuclear war


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what have you read? would you say haig was more or less of a donkey than e.g. sir john french?


just looked it up in _Penguin Modern Quotations_ it was from a conversation between  Ludendorff and Colonel Max Hoffman quoted in A. Clark, _The Donkeys_. No idea if he included Haig amongst the donkeys, but obviously my Dad did.

I have no acedemic interest in field marshalls or any other war mongers.

As you can see from my post 114 I was asking if people had more personal or family stories. I'm more interested in social history or at least a history that includes women, black people, gay people, etc.

I was very aware as a child I was surrounded by older people who had suffered in this war. There was lots of old 'spinsters' women who couldn't marry because of the shortage of men. There were lots of War memorials, and I remember the poppy services of my childhood where old men, who looked grim.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Hitler and mao didnt plan to fight and win a nuclear war



Hitler tried but failed to develop an atomic bomb.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Hitler and mao didnt plan to fight and win a nuclear war



Not sure Hitler would have understood the concept - radiation etc . Mao is another story as he lived in that time period? Truman just saw it as as a big bomb.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you think workers would be better off today if there were no minimum wage?





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hitler tried but failed to develop an atomic bomb.



Whats that go to do with this thread?  WW1 is enough of a subject


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I had and is now in my later post. The network is up and running.



Included in their *General discussion*: on their blog post:-



> • _*Shared myths of war*_; WW2 as shared national sacrifice obviously very big. But WW1 myth needs examining.…



Thanks for the link BA, I'll try to follow their posting; I was drawn to their third 'principle'..



> One suggestion for *principles* which we all liked was:-
> • We honour all the dead.
> • The war arose from normal capitalist social relations.
> • _*Working class resistance stopped the war.*_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Not sure Hitler would have understood the concept - radiation etc . Mao is another story as he lived in that time period? Truman just saw it as as a big bomb.


why not? do you think he was utterly ignorant of what happened to marie curie?


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you think workers would be better off today if there were no minimum wage?



Do you think apples are greener than oranges?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Do you think apples are greener than oranges?


depends on the apple


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> depends on the apple


And the orange.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)




----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2014)




----------



## stowpirate (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why not? do you think he was utterly ignorant of what happened to marie curie?



Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, tremors on the left side of his body, syphilis, Parkinson's disease, addiction to methamphetamines, and a missing left testicle. However not sure the missing testicle bit is true? From the beginning of WWII he was delusional_?_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, tremors on the left side of his body, syphilis, Parkinson's disease, addiction to methamphetamines, and a missing left testicle. However not sure the missing testicle bit is true?


he had all of the above. or not, as the case may be.

next.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so who started it?


IMHO it's less a question of "who?" than of "what?".  

IIRC the waltz of diplomacy created an unstable and complex network of alliances, any one of which could potentially have led to the outbreak of war and then pulled third parties into it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, tremors on the left side of his body, syphilis, Parkinson's disease, addiction to methamphetamines, and a missing left testicle. However not sure the missing testicle bit is true? From the beginning of WWII he was delusional_?_



His health took a turn for the worse beginning with the military reversals in the Soviet Union.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> His health took a turn for the worse beginning with the military reversals in the Soviet Union.


Never heard it called that before


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

Greebo said:


> IMHO it's less a question of "who?" than of "what?".
> 
> IIRC the waltz of diplomacy created an unstable and complex network of alliances, any one of which could potentially have led to the outbreak of war and then pulled third parties into it.


but then you have countries in these alliances like italy which stay out of it - at least at first.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 2, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> just looked it up in _Penguin Modern Quotations_ it was from a conversation between  Ludendorff and Colonel Max Hoffman quoted in A. Clark, _The Donkeys_. No idea if he included Haig amongst the donkeys, but obviously my Dad did.
> 
> I have no acedemic interest in field marshalls or any other war mongers.
> 
> ...


There's a large thread somewhere on urban (might be in general) that a lot of people posted personal stories on about WWI/WWII. This isn't really the thread for recollections.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> just looked it up in _Penguin Modern Quotations_ it was from a conversation between  Ludendorff and Colonel Max Hoffman quoted in A. Clark, _The Donkeys_. No idea if he included Haig amongst the donkeys, but obviously my Dad did.
> 
> I have no acedemic interest in field marshalls or any other war mongers.
> 
> ...


i would have more interest in your opinion on the subject if it were founded on some knowledge of the area rather than, it seems, a kneejerk response along the lines of 'first world war general => donkey'.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>


what about a coxs orange pippin


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> There's a large thread somewhere on urban (might be in general) that a lot of people posted personal stories on about WWI/WWII. This isn't really the thread for recollections.



thanks I'll look them up.


----------



## gosub (Jan 2, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> His health took a turn for the worse beginning with the military reversals in the Soviet Union.


If you create a climate of fear, where everybody is too shit scared to tell you the truth, it can't take long to lose touch with reality


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> And the orange.



What if the apple is one of those Cox's Orange Pippins, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> what about a coxs orange pippin



Doh!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2014)

anybody linked to this yet? article on covert resistance against the war by the troops,

http://libcom.org/history/why-blackadder-goes-forth’-could-have-been-lot-funnier

i'm up to page eight of pickmans bickering and can't be arsed with any more so apologies if it has.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 3, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The creation of the minimum wage, along with other reforms brought in by the Liberal govt. of the day - of which Churchill was a member - has been noted by a number of commentators as being one of the foundations in the establishment of the Welfare State.




of the British welfare state . The Germans had been engaging in wide ranging social programmes for a good 60 odd years previously, which was why they were becoming a fearsome economic competitor with a much more skilled, educated and better fed working class than the British .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 3, 2014)

JTG said:


> Stating that Kaiser Wilhelm fancied a bundle with his imperial rivals does not mean that I think those rivals didn't equally fancy a scrap with him.




france in particular had long been fulminating about revenge for their massive losses in the franco prussian war . They were a dead cert to attack the germans as soon as Russia had engaged on one front .


----------



## toggle (Jan 3, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> of the British welfare state . The Germans had been engaging in wide ranging social programmes for a good 60 odd years previously, which was why they were becoming a fearsome economic competitor with a much more skilled, educated and better fed working class than the British .



the  (massively over-)simplified version in Britain is that the people who should have been bringing in reforms earlier were too busy refusing to put anything through because it might offend one of their supporting 'interest groups'. then came the home rule bill and everything they could agree on fell apart - but Chamberlain being a twonk had a lot to do with that. what late victorian/early edwardian reforms were achieved tended to be by Tories when they finally stopped isolating anyone with populist policies and realised that they could get w/c votes from limited social reform programs. 

I know entirely too much about the effects of the home rule debate on social and political reform. i however, know fuck all about the reform process elsewhere in europe.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 3, 2014)

?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/105...s-Blackadder-myths-about-First-World-War.html


----------



## toggle (Jan 3, 2014)

because gove clearly known more than Richard Evans?



> "The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite."



speaking as a historian, this view is problematic because? - oh yes, it takes away from jingoistic interpretations of great and glorious war. 

there were some very clear lessons from the Boer conflict that had not been learnt. the treatment of the soldiers was abysmal in the cape and was not a lot better in europe.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 3, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> ?
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/105...s-Blackadder-myths-about-First-World-War.html




thats pretty much unassailable proof it wasnt germanys fault


----------



## likesfish (Jan 3, 2014)

Probably proof ww1 didnt actually happen it is foreword to the bible gove after all


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why not? do you think he was utterly ignorant of what happened to marie curie?



Except in scientific circles I don't think there was any realization of the true nature of Radiation and Atomic Warfare. A lot of the things that happened in Japan attacks was clasified albeit it was hard for the US to hide the true facts. When some of the secrecy was dropped with Operation Crossroads at Bikini in 1946 the public concern really started? Even then I do not beleive it was really seen as anything except a very big conventional Bomb. In London the GPO Tower and  the other one in Birmingham was part of a backbone communication system designed to withstand the early A Bombs but obviously not H Bombs! Imperalism, WW1 set in motion a chain of events that still ongoing/seen today!


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 3, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> france in particular had long been fulminating about revenge for their massive losses in the franco prussian war . They were a dead cert to attack the germans as soon as Russia had engaged on one front .



They had a few ongoing border disputes. Was there some issue about coal mines and where the border was drawn on the map. Or was that later? Just answered my own question!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarbrücken#19th_century

France took it as spoils of war at Versailles.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> of the British welfare state . The Germans had been engaging in wide ranging social programmes for a good 60 odd years previously, which was why they were becoming a fearsome economic competitor with a much more skilled, educated and better fed working class than the British .


Can we have some facts and figures to back this up please? Some evidence. This isn't a thread for posting up or reinforcing myths.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Not sure I'm enjoying this kaiser and German ruling class as principled anti imperialist and pro their own working class trope either. Exactly the sort of social imperialism that led so many working class people to kill and be killed for capital and state.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> France took it as spoils of war at Versailles.



The Saar had its own football team in the 1950 World Cup, thus making Germany the only nation to have been represented by four different teams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The Saar had its own football team in the 1950 World Cup, thus making Germany the only nation to have been represented by four different teams.


that would be nice if it were true but as you know the french, who occupied the saar, opposed its integration in west germany until the mid-1950s: so it was not in fact part of germany at the time.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that would be nice if it were true but as you know the french, who occupied the saar, opposed its integration in west germany until the mid-1950s: so it was not in fact part of germany at the time.



Fool.

Actually given their notorious collaboration in 1982, we should probably count Austria as Germany too.  So five teams then.  Who won the bloody war?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Fool.
> 
> Actually given their notorious collaboration in 1982, we should probably count Austria as Germany too.  So five teams then.  Who won the bloody war?


it's this sort of post that reinforces the popular view of you as a gobshite of the lowest kind.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html  Cunt. The Niall Ferguson school of ideological history


----------



## mk12 (Jan 3, 2014)

> But he claims that it was in fact a 'just war' to combat German aggression


 
Although, with the benefit of hindsight, that might not be the cause of the war, or even the genuine motivation for the Allies, it's certainly the view shared by the overwhelming majority of people at the time (including amongst the working-class and labour movement). In that respect, he's right.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2014)

Gove: 'It was a just war to combat imperialist aggression.'

Anyone with any grasp of history: 'Michael, do you extend the same logic to the Boers, Indian nationalists, Irish nationalists and the many others who preferred to govern their own countries instead of the British forcibly doing it for them?' 

Gove: 'Erm...'


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 3, 2014)

> The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths.
> 
> Professor Sir Richard Evans, the Cambridge historian and Guardian writer, has criticised those who fought, arguing, ‘the men who enlisted in 1914 may have thought they were fighting for civilisation, for a better world, a war to end all wars, a war to defend freedom: they were wrong’.
> 
> ...



Jesus wept, that's bad. 
Can you imagine being so one-eyed about history that you could accuse Germany of "ruthless social Darwinism" _in contrast_ to the British Empire? Has he never heard of any of these?


----------



## toggle (Jan 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Jesus wept, that's bad.
> Can you imagine being so one-eyed about history that you could accuse Germany of "ruthless social Darwinism" _in contrast_ to the British Empire? Has he never heard of any of these?



don't forget, this is the bloke that thought teaching about clive of india was both a way to interest kids in history and a way to make people proud of being english.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

toggle said:


> don't forget, this is the bloke that thought teaching about clive of india was both a way to interest kids in history and a way to make people proud of being english.


even the modern idols have feet of clay e.g. stanley matthews, mason


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Jesus wept, that's bad.
> Can you imagine being so one-eyed about history that you could accuse Germany of "ruthless social Darwinism" _in contrast_ to the British Empire? Has he never heard of any of these?


it's always a pleasure to see social darwinism cited anachronistically.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2014)

Just sent him this on Twitter:

'Regarding your WWI comments, were the Boers or Michael Collins justified in fighting British imperialist aggression?'

A response is highly unlikely, methinks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Just sent him this on Twitter:
> 
> 'Regarding your WWI comments, were the Boers or Michael Collins justified in fighting British imperialist aggression?'
> 
> A response is highly unlikely, methinks.


or tom barry, dan breen, liam mellows, patrick pearse, james connolly, etc etc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Except in scientific circles I don't think there was any realization of the true nature of Radiation and Atomic Warfare.



I'm not so sure. bear in mind that there was a significant corpus of medical evidence for the nature and actions of various radioactive materials by the mid-'30s, so there was accumulated knowledge about the severe effects even unprocessed isotopes could have.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 3, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Just sent him this on Twitter:
> 
> 'Regarding your WWI comments, were the Boers or Michael Collins justified in fighting British imperialist aggression?'
> 
> A response is highly unlikely, methinks.


George Osborne is still yet to reply to critiques of his first tweet of the year, too.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> or tom barry, dan breen, liam mellows, patrick pearse, james connolly, etc etc


 
Best to start with examples he might have heard of.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 3, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Gove: 'It was a just war to combat imperialist aggression.'
> 
> Anyone with any grasp of history: 'Michael, do you extend the same logic to the Boers, Indian nationalists, Irish nationalists and the many others who preferred to govern their own countries instead of the British forcibly doing it for them?'
> 
> Gove: 'Erm...'


   But they were foreign so needed to be ruled by the british or they'd only get things wrong


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> even the modern idols have feet of clay e.g. stanley matthews, mason



Wtf are you on about?

You're a loon.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> The Germans had been engaging in wide ranging social programmes for a good 60 odd years previously,.



Which Germans are you talking about, btw? Germany became a unified state in 1871.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 3, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which Germans are you talking about, btw? Germany became a unified state in 1871.




ze germanz


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 3, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> ze germanz


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 3, 2014)

I wonder if Gove knows who coined the phrase "Lions led by donkeys"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Wtf are you on about?
> 
> You're a loon.


clive of india unlikely to appeal to modern sensibilities. but more recent heroic figures also have failings e.g. sir stanley matthews' freemasonry


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I wonder if Gove knows who coined the phrase "Lions led by donkeys"?



You thinking of "ankles" Clark?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2014)

Now Hannan's jumped aboard....in a further attempt to mythologise himself and his grubby nationalism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ould-britain-have-joined-the-first-world-war/

But the funniest line has to be...



> In a *judicious article* this morning, Michael Gove politely corrects this attitude, which has crept from popular entertainment into academia. (_*Has any Education Secretary had a finer appreciation of history? One of the reasons NUT types resent Gove is that they know he'd be a far more impressive teacher than them*_.)









Liked this Tele comment...



> _Has any Education Secretary had a finer appreciation of history?_
> 
> The fact you ask this question suggests your grasp of history is grossly overrated.
> 
> ...


----------



## toggle (Jan 3, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Now Hannan's jumped aboard....in a further attempt to mythologise himself and his grubby nationalism.
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ould-britain-have-joined-the-first-world-war/
> 
> ...





> Scotland had 10 per cent of the United Kingdom's population in the 1911 census, but contributed 15 per cent of her soldiers: 700,000 men from a population of 4.8 million



since when is either a biased use of conscription or lack of industries providing secure employment something to celebrate?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Would recomend Baroness Hollis lecture 'The hopes of the suffragettes'from 6th Nov, but aired on BBC Parliment on 28/12/13.

I'd always thought that womens vote was partly won because of womens WW1 war work (Pickmans model, please don't ask me for a biblography of my entire life, most of what I read about suffragettes was 30 years ago) - this lecture refutes that - lots of interesting stuff about suffrage.  When they gave women over 30 yrs old the vote, they also extended the male franchise by 4 million - of which I wasn't aware.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You thinking of "ankles" Clark?


Yes, though he didn't actually coin it. The title of his book was "Donkeys" and iirc it's not a flattering picture of the war. Gove would do well to read it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Now Hannan's jumped aboard....in a further attempt to mythologise himself and his grubby nationalism.
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...ould-britain-have-joined-the-first-world-war/
> 
> ...


For someone with a degree in Modern History from Oxford, Hannan has a poor grasp of his subject.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, though he didn't actually coin it. The title of his book was "Donkeys" and iirc it's not a flattering picture of the war. Gove would do well to read it.



Yep, and Gove would do well to STFU and stop attempting to further his campaign for party leadership at the expense of academics who've actually researched and published the topic in depth.

WRT to "ankles"....Wiki tells the tale of the fiction of his explanation...



> Alan Clark based the title of his book "The Donkeys" (1961) on the phrase. Prior to publication in a letter to Hugh Trevor Roper he asked "English soldiers, lions led by donkeys etc - can _you_ remember who said that?" Liddell Hart, although he did not dispute the veracity of the quote, had asked Clark for its origins. [7] Whatever Trevor Roper's reply, Clark eventually used the phrase as an epigraph to _The Donkeys_ and attributed it to a conversation between German generals Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann:
> 
> _Ludendorff: The English soldiers fight like lions.
> Hoffmann: True. But don't we know that they are lions led by donkeys._"[1][2]
> The conversation was supposedly published in the memoirs of General Erich von Falkenhayn, the German chief of staff between 1914 and 1916 but the exchange and, indeed, the memoirs remain untraced.[1] Clark was equivocal about the source for the dialogue for many years although in 2007, a friend Euan Graham recalled a conversation in the mid sixties when Clark on being challenged as to the dialogue's provenance looked sheepish and said "well I invented it". At one time Clark claimed that Liddell Hart had given him the quote (unlikely as Hart had asked him where it came from) and Clark's biographer believes he invented the Ludendorff-Hoffmann attribution[8] This invention has provided a major opportunity for critics of "The Donkeys" to condemn the work. Richard Holmes, for example, wrote of _The Donkeys_ "..it contained a streak of casual dishonesty. Its title is based on the ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ conversation between Hindenburg [sic] and Ludendorff. There is no evidence whatever for this: none. Not a jot or scintilla. Liddell Hart, who had vetted Clark’s manuscript, ought to have known it."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Would recomend Baroness Hollis lecture 'The hopes of the suffragettes'from 6th Nov, but aired on BBC Parliment on 28/12/13.
> 
> I'd always thought that womens vote was partly won because of womens WW1 war work (Pickmans model, please don't ask me for a biblography of my entire life, most of what I read about suffragettes was 30 years ago) - this lecture refutes that - lots of interesting stuff about suffrage.  When they gave women over 30 yrs old the vote, they also extended the male franchise by 4 million - of which I wasn't aware.


Suffragette _ladies _helped drive lots of people to join up and kill and be killed for their masters too. The WPSU stopped all pro-suffrage work and got fully and aggressively behind the great patriotic war the second it kicked off. They renamed their paper Britannia  from Votes for Women and led recruitment drives - including the use of white feather tactics.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Suffragette _ladies _helped drive lots of people to join up and kill and be killed for their masters too. The WPSU stopped all pro-suffrage work and got fully and aggressively behind the great patriotic war the second it kicked off. They renamed their paper Britannia  from Votes for Women and led recruitment drives - including the use of white feather tactics.


 
Class trumped sex, when the chips were down.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2014)

Athos said:


> Class trumped sex, when the chips were down.


Wouldn't say it was quite that straightforward - but the upper class leaders of the movement did play a shameful role. Of course, other upper class women  - Sylvia Pankhurst to the fore -  did play an admirable role, and often at great personal cost.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wouldn't say it was quite that straightforward - but the upper class leaders of the movement did play a shameful role. Of course, other upper class women  - Sylvia Pankhurst to the fore -  did play an admirable role, and often at great personal cost.


 
True. It cost Sylvia Pankhurst her relationship with her mother and sister, both of whom were campaigning for conscription!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

Gove did english and worked as a journo. How the hell he got ed sec job is beyond me.


----------



## toggle (Jan 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Suffragette _ladies _helped drive lots of people to join up and kill and be killed for their masters too. The WPSU stopped all pro-suffrage work and got fully and aggressively behind the great patriotic war the second it kicked off. They renamed their paper Britannia  from Votes for Women and led recruitment drives - including the use of white feather tactics.



it always struck me that many of the suffragettes stopped campaigning, while the main suffragists continued.but I need to read a lot more on that. 



Athos said:


> Class trumped sex, when the chips were down.



it did for a lot of the campaigners. Fawcett's comments on the match girls strike give a fairly clear idea of what she thought of the poor.

but at the time, there was discussion about whether citizenship rights should be linked to the ability to be considered for military service. the campaigns for manhood suffrage regularly brought up the unfairness in accepting a man was considered responsible to decide to fight for his country, but not responsible enough to have a vote. there were ideas that by supporting the war effort, then women could prove themselves active citizens alongside the soldiers and continue linking their campaign to the manhood suffrage one.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 4, 2014)

Can anyone recommend me a good read on the causes of WW1?


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 4, 2014)

Some good reads on WWI:

'Tommy' by Richard Holmes is excellent for describing the day-to-day existence of soldiers in the field.

'The First World War' by John Keegan is worth reading.

'Aces Falling' by Peter Hart is great for covering the air war.

'A Naval History of WWI' by Paul G Halpern covers the naval campaigns.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Gove did english and worked as a journo. How the hell he got ed sec job is beyond me.


That cunt wears his ignorance on his sleeve. He knows fuck all about education. He's not a pedagogue, he's an ideologue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Gove did english and worked as a journo. How the hell he got ed sec job is beyond me.



Because he's a pliable cunt with an unfounded depth of self-belief, who also happens to have a lot of "ins" with the right-wing press.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Can anyone recommend me a good read on the causes of WW1?



Christopher Clark - "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" is the best I've read in the last 2-3 years.
Annika Mombauer's "The Origins of the First World War" is also good, although a bit dry.  She also explores the Fischer thesis (as previously mentioned by Butchersapron).


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Christopher Clark - "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" is the best I've read in the last 2-3 years.
> Annika Mombauer's "The Origins of the First World War" is also good, although a bit dry.  She also explores the Fischer thesis (as previously mentioned by Butchersapron).



Thanks, 'The Sleepwalkers' does look good.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> it always struck me that many of the suffragettes stopped campaigning, while the main suffragists continued.but I need to read a lot more on that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Plainly they were all fighting the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons . Twerent the germans who were a threat to their rights .


----------



## toggle (Jan 4, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> Plainly they were all fighting the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons . Twerent the germans who were a threat to their rights .



Nods. 

I've come across some of the ones that were very aware of this, through examining Emily Hobhouse. that will be the woman who thought that a known leftie pacifist troublemaker could meet with members of the german gvt and start peace negotiations in 1916.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Christopher Clark - "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" is the best I've read in the last 2-3 years.
> Annika Mombauer's "The Origins of the First World War" is also good, although a bit dry.  She also explores the Fischer thesis (as previously mentioned by Butchersapron).


i quite like the thesis outlined in 'the good soldier svejk'. http://libcom.org/files/The Good Soldier Svejk - Jaroslav Hasek.pdf


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2014)

Another interesting but less mentioned fact is how Carson, Craig and their Ulster Volunteers took possession of a shipment of arms from Imperial Germany in 1914. Months later, the same people (minus Carson and Craig) were facing the Germans in the trenches... and being killed by them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Another interesting but less mentioned fact is how Carson, Craig and their Ulster Volunteers took possession of a shipment of arms from Imperial Germany in 1914. Months later, the same people (minus Carson and Craig) were facing the Germans in the trenches... and being killed by them.


your implication is the guns were from the kaiser ("took possession of a shipment of arms from imperial germany"). in fact they bought them.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i quite like the thesis outlined in 'the good soldier svejk'. http://libcom.org/files/The Good Soldier Svejk - Jaroslav Hasek.pdf



Which is?

Precis please.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> it always struck me that many of the suffragettes stopped campaigning, while the main suffragists continued.but I need to read a lot more on that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Toggle, have you read 'Singled Out' by Virginia Nicholson?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> your implication is the guns were from the kaiser ("took possession of a shipment of arms from imperial germany"). in fact they bought them.



the germans were quite happy to sell gear to whoever wanted it . Most of it was old stuff anyway . It wasnt until later they got round to the business of donating it . They were funding the Bolsheviks by then as well .


----------



## toggle (Jan 4, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Toggle, have you read 'Singled Out' by Virginia Nicholson?



nope, i'll add it to my list.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> nope, i'll add it to my list.


It's really good, well researched and well written. Discusses many of the problems faced by women during and after WWI, across the different classes.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

toggle said:


> Nods.
> 
> I've come across some of the ones that were very aware of this, through examining Emily Hobhouse. that will be the woman who thought that a known leftie pacifist troublemaker could meet with members of the german gvt and start peace negotiations in 1916.



the amount of people who preferred to do the British ruling classes a favour...helping them kill lots of other people.. in the hope of one being returned is astonishing . Irish nationalists, Irish unionists, Indian nationalists, suffragettes, trade unionists...mind boggling the utter stupidity when the cause of their respective problems was staring them right in the face . As was the opportunity to stick it to them once and for all in many cases .


----------



## toggle (Jan 4, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> the amount of people who preferred to do the British ruling classes a favour...helping them kill lots of other people.. in the hope of one being returned is astonishing . Irish nationalists, Irish unionists, Indian nationalists, suffragettes, trade unionists...mind boggling the utter stupidity when the cause of their respective problems was staring them right in the face . As was the opportunity to stick it to them once and for all in many cases .



oh, absolutely.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Another interesting but less mentioned fact is how Carson, Craig and their Ulster Volunteers took possession of a shipment of arms from Imperial Germany in 1914. Months later, the same people (minus Carson and Craig) were facing the Germans in the trenches... and being killed by them.



poor willie redmond led a great many Irish nationalists to their deaths at the front, after splitting the volunteer movement and purloining most of the guns . Although at least he had the decency to get himself killed while he was out there . In a fit of post 1916 pique though he stipulated that in the event of his death he was to be buried seperately from the British army war dead . So he ended up with  a little plot of his own .

Theres it there , just outside the big hole in the ground were his social inferiors foolish enough to listen to him are dumped in their thousands. Precisely were he led them .







not sure what those plants are but if its cabbages itd be appropriate


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2014)

An event:

'To End All Wars’ with Adam Hochschild
 7pm, Friday 17 January, Friends House, 173 – 177 Euston Road, NW1 (opp. Euston station). Free entrance.



> Renowned US author Adam Hochschild (King Leopold’s Ghost, Bury the Chains) talks about his recent book ‘To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914 – 1918′ – the only recent history of WW1 to foreground the anti-war movement.
> 
> This event will also be the launch for PN’s new First World War project: a visual celebration of the people and movements that opposed the First World War, largely inspired by Adam’s book.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

discokermit said:


> anybody linked to this yet? article on covert resistance against the war by the troops,
> 
> http://libcom.org/history/why-blackadder-goes-forth’-could-have-been-lot-funnier
> 
> i'm up to page eight of pickmans bickering and can't be arsed with any more so apologies if it has.




good article that, cheers


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2014)

I think that this http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/The-TES-Podcast-World-War-I-special-6373212 is the bit in the TES which butchersapron mentioned previously upthread as being part of the effort to rehabilitate the image of the war in the eyes of the public


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I think that this http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/The-TES-Podcast-World-War-I-special-6373212 is the bit in the TES which butchersapron mentioned previously upthread as being part of the effort to rehabilitate the image of the war in the eyes of the public


They are just trying to rehabilitate the ruling classes running of it.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2014)

Hunt doing a good impression of troll food.

Fucking hell, is this what it's come to.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 4, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> They are just trying to rehabilitate the ruling classes running of it.



and get ready for another one . Its been a while afterall .


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2014)

I've only just found this already long thread and couldn't read it all.

Here's hoping the re-dredging of WW1 will also include the end and lingering impact - Versailles to Ruhr to Weimar to Hitler - as a historical reminder.  Got taught that for O-level a long time ago.  Is it still taught?

Would also agree that 'Monocled Mutineer' deserves a repeat (mainly because it really pissed off Tories back in '86) and perhaps  a showing of 'Kamaradschaft' (on BBC4 I guess).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kameradschaft  and 'Testament of Youth' - written by Shirley Williams' mum and a BBC serial in 1979.

Modern 'Public Relations' also arrived (in America) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_creel_commision - with that Bernays fella replacing 'propaganda' with 'PR'

Apologies if this has already been covered.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 5, 2014)

Paulie said:


> Would also agree that 'Monocled Mutineer' deserves a repeat (mainly because it really pissed off Tories back in '86)



Would that be the fraudster, deserter, con artist, black marketeer, thief, murderer and convicted nonce also known as Percy Toplis, perchance? The same Percy Toplis who, according to his own service record and many who were actually AT Etaples during the mutiny, wasn't anywhere near Etaples Camp at the time of the mutiny, never mind being a ringleader thereof?

Whose many and varied crimes included this little lot?

http://www.eden.gov.uk/leisure-and-culture/museum-penrith-and-eden/museum-collections/percy-toplis/

Hardly somebody I'd trumpet as any kind of anti-Estabishment poster boy, to be honest.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 5, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Would that be the fraudster, deserter, con artist, black marketeer, thief, murderer and convicted nonce also known as Percy Toplis, perchance? The same Percy Toplis who, according to his own service record and many who were actually AT Etaples during the mutiny, wasn't anywhere near Etaples Camp at the time of the mutiny, never mind being a ringleader thereof?
> 
> Whose many and varied crimes included this little lot?
> 
> ...


Alan beasdale wrote the tv script so alan is a known left winger .Though it may not be true to life the tories have fed us enough lies ,so if it got up the tories nose all the better


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Would that be the fraudster, deserter, con artist, black marketeer, thief, murderer and convicted nonce also known as Percy Toplis, perchance? The same Percy Toplis who, according to his own service record and many who were actually AT Etaples during the mutiny, wasn't anywhere near Etaples Camp at the time of the mutiny, never mind being a ringleader thereof?
> 
> Whose many and varied crimes included this little lot?
> 
> ...


Irrelevant really. Showing that mutinies took place, and they did on a massive scale, not just abroad but here too (Portsmouth I think it was that was literally taken over by mutineers, will check shortly), that the state has sought desperately to cover them up for a century, breaking open these lies is far more important and could only be helped by showing this again.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant really. Showing that mutinies took place, and they did on a massive scale, not just abroad but here too (Portsmouth I think it was that was literally taken over by mutineers, will check shortly), that the state has sought desperately to cover them up for a century, breaking open these lies is far more important and could only be helped by showing this again.



That could be done far more accurately with a few well-made documentaries and well-written, properly-researched books, IMHO. Looking at his criminal record I'm inclined to see Percy Toplis as serving nobody's cause except his own. The problem doesn't lie in assessing and exposing various previously-hidden events, but in parading the likes of Toplis as being anything other than the violent serial criminal that he undoubtedly was.

By all means, let's closely and honestly examine the events you're referring to, but let's not be using the likes of Toplis as a vehicle for that as it'll only do that examination considerable damage.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> that the state has sought desperately to cover them up for a century, .



They're not doing a very good job.

http://libcom.org/history/1917-the-etaples-mutiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/war-as-revolution/mutiny-on-the-aisne/

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22743

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kWc...nepage&q=austrian navy mutiny cattaro&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattaro_Mutiny


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They're not doing a very good job.
> 
> http://libcom.org/history/1917-the-etaples-mutiny
> 
> ...


Good lord, do you think the state is writing short articles on lib-come, asking questions about it on forums and writing wikipedia pieces? I think your response - and the paucity of it - actually demonstrates what i said.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

> that the state has sought desperately to cover them up for a century,



Based on five minutes' research, I'd call it a really shit coverup.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> That could be done far more accurately with a few well-made documentaries and well-written, properly-researched books, IMHO. Looking at his criminal record I'm inclined to see Percy Toplis as serving nobody's cause except his own. The problem doesn't lie in assessing and exposing various previously-hidden events, but in parading the likes of Toplis as being anything other than the violent serial criminal that he undoubtedly was.
> 
> By all means, let's closely and honestly examine the events you're referring to, but let's not be using the likes of Toplis as a vehicle for that as it'll only do that examination considerable damage.


Very few people are going to sit down and watch a documentary - people will sit down and watch fast paced drama's with interesting characters in interesting situations that they may not have been aware of. That's why the series was so popular first time around and re-ignited a debate that the state did not want about the mutinies and executions - and also why it's never been repeated. The point is not to say here it Toplis, here is a hero, but to break open the official picture of the war - Toplis is neither here nor there expect as hook on which to hang that task.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Based on five minutes' research, I'd call it a really shit coverup.


Research? 

Let me explain this very slowly - the state recognised that mutinies happened. It sought - at the time and later - to cover up the scale and extent of the number of mutinies, the number of mutineers involved and the range the of issues they were centred on. Your _research _says nothing about this beyond the fact that some people on the internet have used the word mutiny. For which, many thanks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Research?
> 
> Let me explain this very slowly - the state recognised that mutinies happened. It sought - at the time and later - to cover up the scale and extent of the number of mutinies, the number of mutineers involved and the range the of issues they were centred on. Your _research _says nothing about this beyond the fact that some people on the internet have used the word mutiny. For which, many thanks.



But.... _you _know about it..... even though the state has covered it up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But.... _you _know about it..... even though the state has covered it up.


What did i actually say you time-wasting prat?



> that the state has sought desperately to cover them up for a century,


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What did i actually say you time-wasting prat?



But they will fail, so long as there are people around with special knowledge - like you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

And as for your _research - _three of your five  links are to mutinies in foreign armies and so not subject to british state attempt to cover up, and one is a short extract from a very long very detailed pamphlet (that i put on line years ago) that goes into some detail about the various ways in which the state sought to hide the extent and depth of the mutinies. That leaves someone on a forum 10 years ago, saying _i heard there were some mutinies somewhere._ So well done there. Well done indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But they will fail, so long as there are people around with special knowledge - like you.


They've already failed at least in burying them completely. In removing them from popular consciousness - they've been pretty successful. And that is the reason why the monocled mutineers was so dangerous and why it's never been shown again.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 5, 2014)

Edited.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They've already failed at least in burying them completely. In removing them from popular consciousness - they've been pretty successful.



How does The State do this: is there a special department somewhere that monitors pending book publications, for instance, and then a black ops team swoops in the night?

Squads of disinformation officers monitoring the situation and sending out obfuscating twitter and facebook posts when the topic comes up?

Which Ministerial budget does this all fall under?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

There's a pretty good example being discussed around your posts as it goes - you appear not to have noticed it. The monocled mutineer is a great example.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An event:
> 
> 'To End All Wars’ with Adam Hochschild
> 7pm, Friday 17 January, Friends House, 173 – 177 Euston Road, NW1 (opp. Euston station). Free entrance.



Might go along to this.is that the friends meeting house?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Might go along to this.is that the friends meeting house?



Yep.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And as for your _research - _three of your five  links are to mutinies in foreign armies and so not subject to british state attempt to cover up, and one is a short extract from a very long very detailed pamphlet (that i put on line years ago) that goes into some detail about the various ways in which the state sought to hide the extent and depth of the mutinies. That leaves someone on a forum 10 years ago, saying _i heard there were some mutinies somewhere._ So well done there. Well done indeed.



http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol8/no2/part4-intro.html

http://www.canadiangreatwarproject.com/writing/kinmelPark.asp

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/demobilisation.htm


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2014)

It appears that there was also a British mutiny in WW2 at Salerno, which also hasn't been successfully covered up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/mutiny_01.shtml


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol8/no2/part4-intro.html
> 
> http://www.canadiangreatwarproject.com/writing/kinmelPark.asp
> 
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/demobilisation.htm


Marvelous, a piece from a trot journal with a circulation around 100, a piece that confirms exactly the myths around these mutinies (foreign troops/very small scale) and one about foreign troops. Again.

What exactly are you trying to prove here - that putting mutiny into google will come up with some results? If so, thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It appears that there was also a British mutiny in WW2 at Salerno, which also hasn't been successfully covered up.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/mutiny_01.shtml


And how many people are aware of it? That's the point you googling buffoon.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 5, 2014)

Sarajevo hotels already totally block booked for the 28th June. Friends of mine working round the clock on finishing Vijećnica ready for the gala performance of the Vienna Philharmonic. The city will be absolute mayhem this year...


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Very few people are going to sit down and watch a documentary - people will sit down and watch fast paced drama's with interesting characters in interesting situations that they may not have been aware of. That's why the series was so popular first time around and re-ignited a debate that the state did not want about the mutinies and executions - and also why it's never been repeated. The point is not to say here it Toplis, here is a hero, but to break open the official picture of the war - Toplis is neither here nor there expect as hook on which to hang that task.



I can think of more savoury hooks far less open to attack than Percy Toplis, to be honest. If we're wanting to open the issues to wider debate (which I happen to agree with entirely, by the way) then I doubt using the Monocled Mutineer is the best example. If I were to try forcing a debate then I wouldn't risk using Toplis as a means to do so, especially as Toplis himself probably wasn't even involved in the mutinies and probably wasn't even in France at the time.

Using Tois and the book by Allison and Fairley to discuss those issue and/or force honest, solid debate is like trying to force honest, solid debate about the Mafie by citing 'The Godfather' as though it's gospel.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

The point is to look at _what's hanging on the hook_ - not the hook.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The point is to look at _what's hanging on the hook_ - not the hook.



Then it's best to pick a hook that isn't so easily discredited, surely. If I had an interest in discrediting the mutineers and defending the Establishment then I'd be delighted if Toplis was used as a hook because he'd be a perfect vehicle for me to do that. All I'd have to do was flag up Toplis's extensive criminal history, crimes of violence, dishonesty and prison record and and chances are that few people would feel like digging any further into the subject and the issues around it.

If, on the other hand, I wanted to use an individual soldier as a hook then I'd far more likely use this one, for instance. Corporal Jesse Robert Short of the Northumberland Fusiliers, the only soldier actually executed for his role in the Etaples Mutiny in spite of his previous good service record and absence of serial violent crimes:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/service_records/p_field.htm

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/45707/SHORT, JESSE ROBERT

http://www.newcastlegateshead.org/PAGESHOTATDAWNZ.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

The hook is irrelevant if you're looking at what's hanging on it. All this stuff about Toplis was brought up first time around and did nothing whatsoever to stop the public debate that ensued about the mutinies and the executions and the terrible way soldiers were treated - regardless of whether they mutinied. It's not about Toplis. And it's not about individuals - heroes or not, but about collective experiences and actions and popular memories  (or not) of them.  The monocled mutineer is actually a good kick off point if you wanted to do something about Short as well.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't think the hook is irrelevant nowadays, personally, not if you're looking to connect to a more mainstream audience. The book (widely disparaged for various reasons) came out in 1978. The series was broadcast in 1986. We now exist in 2014 and the social landscape has changed somewhat since then. I don't think people are anywhere near as likely to overlook Toplis's criminal history as they were then. I DO think his being a violent serial criminal, particularly a convicted child rapist, would be seriously damaging to any attempt at more serious debate on the issues around Etaples and the Army's treatment of soldiers generally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Which is?
> 
> Precis please.


just read the first couple of chapters.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> just read the first couple of chapters.



Have to admit I was rather put off by the 751 pages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Have to admit I was rather put off by the 751 pages.


read the first couple of chapters and you never know you might even enjoy it.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> read the first couple of chapters and you never know you might even enjoy it.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> to my mind a good corrective would be simply to go to the archive and have a look at local newspapers from 1914-1918. people topping themselves because of air raids. people mugging canadian soldiers and going down the west end as they'd be treated in the bars. men using all manner of excuses to evade military service. sadly there's no counterpart - as far as i know - to angus calder's 'the people's war' about the second world war.


Ken Weller "_don't be a soldier!: the radical anti war movement in North London 1914-1918" _London 1985 is the best I've found.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Ken Weller "_don't be a soldier!: the radical anti war movement in North London 1914-1918" _London 1985 is the best I've found.



Referenced in this useful (short) article looking at anti-war agitation from Workers Freedom Groups, particularly in Abertillery and Stockport.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They're not doing a very good job.
> 
> http://libcom.org/history/1917-the-etaples-mutiny
> 
> ...



You'd do better to look at how most knowledge of the various mutinies is drawn from minimal resources, then ask "why?".
The general answer is "records were lost".  The more specific answer is that records were destroyed, so that the only "side" most people ever got to hear of the WW1 mutinies (or of those in WW2) were stories from "other ranks", that could be dismissed by the authorities as tosh.
It's amazing how many battalion war diaries have blocks of pages around certain dates missing or blank.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous, a piece from a trot journal with a circulation around 100, a piece that confirms exactly the myths around these mutinies (foreign troops/very small scale) and one about foreign troops. Again.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to prove here - that putting mutiny into google will come up with some results? If so, thanks.



Hey, don't be cruel.  Googling is Johnny's "thing".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How does The State do this: is there a special department somewhere that monitors pending book publications, for instance, and then a black ops team swoops in the night?



It's called "controlling the discourse", and means the state doesn't need to do any of the things you mention: All they need do is make sure that, when researchers come calling, there's very little actual *officially-recorded knowledge*; that most of the knowledge is oral, and therefore deniable.  This way the state can ask "surely, if this event actually took place, there'd be a lot more data out there, academic studies and such?"
Find any decent academic article on the WW1 mutinies such as that at Etaples, and then look at the sources - most of the stuff garnered from war diaries were from ANZAC and Indian regts where the War Office couldn't exert enough pressure to get them to fluff their records.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd do better to look at how most knowledge of the various mutinies is drawn from minimal resources, then ask "why?".
> The general answer is "records were lost".  The more specific answer is that records were destroyed, so that the only "side" most people ever got to hear of the WW1 mutinies (or of those in WW2) were stories from "other ranks", that could be dismissed by the authorities as tosh.
> It's amazing how many battalion war diaries have blocks of pages around certain dates missing or blank.


why not give a couple of examples of this if it's so common.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why not give a couple of examples of this if it's so common.



I'm currently trying to find the pdf of an article I've got, that actually does that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm currently trying to find the pdf of an article I've got, that actually does that.


looking at gill and dallas' 1975 article about etaples, they cite the base commandant's war diary. and they also mention in passing that lots of soldiers from lots of units passed through etaples, so it doesn't sound like e.g. 1 south essex but perhaps a company from 1 south essex - lots of bitty groups. there may be more than one reason for there to be scanty records from most of the units - the people who wrote things like war diaries not present - while units from other parts of the empire may have been shipped to places like etaples en masse. british army units unlike e.g. anzac units might have been sent in penny packets as their homes/home bases much nearer.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 6, 2014)

Has the "Rape of Belgium" been discussed, propoganda or otherwise? Came across this WW1 Armenian Genocide which appears to be very similar to WWII Holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The effect of war on non-combatents is really untold?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 6, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Has the "Rape of Belgium" been discussed, propoganda or otherwise? Came across this WW1 Armenian Genocide which appears to be very similar to WWII Holocaust.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
> 
> The effect of war on non-combatents is really untold?



  Propagandized to an extent ,but, the Germans were complete bastards to the Belgians and not just in reprisal for acts of resistance.
  Like the pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait in the first gulf war. A story which didn't happen ,didn't, mean the Iraqi's didn't commit
atrocities.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> - most of the stuff garnered from war diaries were from ANZAC and Indian regts where the War Office couldn't exert enough pressure to get them to fluff their records.



Correct me if I'm wrong: weren't Indian regiments part of the British army; and the Indian Expeditionary Forces that participated in the fighting in WW1, were commanded by British generals, and were part of the overall British military command structure?

That being the case, why would there be any greater difficulty in having records altered, of regiments staffed by Indian citizens and commanded by British officers?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Came across this WW1 Armenian Genocide which appears to be very similar to WWII Holocaust.



Oh no you don't.

The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.

To mention only the most obvious difference: the massacre (not genocide) of Armenians took place during a war in which Armenian troops were heavily engaged against the Kurds (who mostly carried out the massacres) and Turks.  The Jewish Holocaust was inflicted upon an unarmed civilian population who had never threatened anyone.

Please think carefully before making this comparison again, because it can give serious offence.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong: weren't Indian regiments part of the British army; and the Indian Expeditionary Forces that participated in the fighting in WW1, were commanded by British generals, and were part of the overall British military command structure?
> 
> That being the case, why would there be any greater difficulty in having records altered, of regiments staffed by Indian citizens and commanded by British officers?



		Different Army. They were part of the Indian Army. Some weird imperial thing.istr


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no you don't.
> 
> The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.
> 
> ...



The genocide against the Armenians, a Christian minority in the muslim Ottoman empire, began in the late 1800s. The initial phase, lasting until approx. 1909, killed around 300,000 Armenian citizens.

The later phase, lasting until 1923,  instituted by the Young Turks and the CUP, began during the war, under cover of war, with the killing occurring in places affected by fighting, to act as a partial cover for the genocide. Many Armenians also died during forced deportations carried out by making the Armenians walk to the new location - in what amounted to death marches.

One of the driving factors causing the Turks to decide to wipe out the Armenians, was the push for some form of self determination. The Turks weren't interested in any rearrangement of the status quo as it pertained to their exercise of power.

Yes, very much a genocide.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Different Army. They were part of the Indian Army. Some weird imperial thing.istr



But apparently still part of the overall British command structure.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The genocide against the Armenians, a Christian minority in the muslim Ottoman empire, began in the late 1800s. The initial phase, lasting until approx. 1909, killed around 300,000 Armenian citizens.
> 
> The later phase, lasting until 1923,  instituted by the Young Turks and the CUP, occurred during the war, under cover of war, with the killing occurring in places affected by fighting, to act as a partial cover for the genocide. Many Armenians also died during forced deportations carried out by making the Armenians walk to the new location - in what amounted to death marches.
> 
> ...



Where are you getting your information Johnny?

At the very least, you need to read the other side's version of history.

That's only fair, right?

So let's start here.  It was war, and there were massacres of civilians carried out by all sides.

Can we agree so far?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocide.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Where are you getting your information Johnny?
> 
> At the very least, you need to read the other side's version of history.
> 
> ...



The ottoman Turks killed over one million of their own citizens: the Armenians.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm aware of the fact that the Turks continue to deny the Genocide.

The Japanese for the most part don't take responsibility for the numerous atrocities committed by their army during the war. They continue to dispute the Rape of Nanking, for instance.

The maintenance of a denial is not evidence disproving the historical events.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The ottoman Turks killed over one million of their own citizens: the Armenians.



And the Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians.

Do you deny that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

A similar employment of the Big Lie, wherein a government maintains a denial in the hopes that the world will overlook and/or forget, is the denial of the genocide of Darfur by the Sudanese government, and a denial of their complicity with and support for the Janjaweed.

Smaller numbers, but reminiscent of the approach taken by the Ottomans, and then the more recent Turkish governments.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm aware of the fact that the Turks continue to deny the Genocide.



It's not just the Turks.

No objective historian could compare the Armenian massacres with the Jewish Holocaust.  

It's not that anyone denies that over a million Armenians were massacred.  But there are enormous differences between that and the Holocaust.  I doubt you need me to enumerate them.

It is therefore misleading to use the same term for both events.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A similar employment of the Big Lie, wherein a government maintains a denial in the hopes that the world will overlook and/or forget, is the denial of the genocide of Darfur by the Sudanese government, and a denial of their complicity with and support for the Janjaweed.
> 
> Smaller numbers, but reminiscent of the approach taken by the Ottomans, and then the more recent Turkish governments.



Do you deny that Armenian troops massacred hundreds of thousands of Kurdish and Turkish civilians?

YES/NO


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

> An influential Kurdish leader in Turkey, in an interview published on Sunday, acknowledged the Kurds’ role in the Armenian Genocide and apologized to the Armenians on behalf of the Kurdish people.
> 
> Turkish parliament member and the vice-president of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Congress Ahmet Turk said that in 1915 the Kurdish people had a large role in the torture and massacre of Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis and, he as a Kurd, apologized to the Armenian people on behalf of all Kurds.
> 
> ...



http://asbarez.com/108106/kurdish-leader-apologizes-for-role-in-genocide/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 6, 2014)

> This bleak assessment was pronounced by Sahak Mashalyan, an Armenian Orthodox priest, during a recent Sunday mass at the Asdvadzadzin church in Istanbul. Reeling off the statistics: 482 funerals, 236 baptisms and 191 weddings, the black-robed cleric solemnly intoned, “These figures point to a community … that is dying.”
> 
> Little over a century ago, the Armenian Patriarchate put Anatolia’s Armenian population at more than two million. In 1915, tragedy struck. Estimated figures vary, but between 800,000 and a million Armenians are thought to have been slaughtered by Ottoman forces and their Kurdish allies in what many respected historians call the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey vehemently denies any genocidal intent. The official line is that most of the Armenians died from hunger and disease, as they were forcibly deported to the deserts of Syria amid the upheaval of the collapsing empire.
> 
> The ruling Islamic Justice and Development Party has done more than any of its pro-secular predecessors to improve the lot of Christian minorities and to encourage freer debate of the horrors that befell them. Yet it has also showered millions of dollars on international lobbying firms in a vain effort to peddle the official version of events. A steady trickle of nations continue to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide. Turkey’s biggest worry is that on the centenary in 2015, the United States will risk wrecking relations and follow suit.



http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/turkey-kurds-seek-armenian-forgiveness.html#


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny, you just quoted a Kurd apologizing for "injustices" committed against "Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis."

Can't you see how that supports my contention that this was not a matter of Turks committing genocide against Armenians?  

There were at least five different national(ist) armies in the Anatolian field by the end of WW1, all happily massacring each others' civilians.

You really ought to do your homework before making pronouncments about this part of history.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Johnny, you just quoted a Kurd apologizing for "injustices" committed against "Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis."
> 
> Can't you see how that supports my contention that this was not a matter of Turks committing genocide against Armenians?
> 
> ...


once more you pkay thepart if namby-pamby poseur ,-- you're not very good at this teading thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you're not very good at this teading thing.



I confess it's true.  Teading has never been my strong point.

You're quite good at teading though aren't you?

You're a right teader in fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Johnny, you just quoted a Kurd apologizing for "injustices" committed against "Armenians, Assyrians and Yezidis."
> 
> Can't this was not a matter of Turks committing
> There wt national(ist) armies in the Anatolian fiel
> ...


once more you play the part of namby-pamby poseur -- you're not very good at this reading thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> once more you play the part of namby-pamby poseur -- you're not very good at this reading thing.



That's much better.

If you make any more mistakes like that, no Kaliber for you at lunchtime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I confess it's true.  Teading has never been my stron
> You're a right teader in fact.


i'd like to see the quality of your typing when you're using a phone in a bus on a bumpy road. have you remembered yet which fascist ideas you declared useful in your theoretical toolkit?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd like to see the quality of your typing when you're using a phone in a bus on a bumpy road.



You've missed your stop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That's much better.
> 
> If you make any more mistakes like that, no Kaliber for you at lunchtime.


we can dance round the issue or you can reread jc3's post and give him the apology he deserves.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we can dance round the issue or you can reread jc3's post and give him the apology he deserves.



Get off the bus man, you'll be in Euston soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Get off the bus man, you'll be in Euston soon.


fool. the 343 doesn't go to euston.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fool. the 343 doesn't go to euston.



Walking across the bridge today?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Walking across the bridge today?


this is why your next ban will be longer, cos you take threads and shit crap nonsense on them.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> this is why your next ban will be longer, cos you take threads and shit crap nonsense on them.



Ding-ding, move along please.  Plenty of room at the back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Ding-ding, move along please.  Plenty of room at the back.


i see you have nothing to add about ww1. why not leave this thread to those who do?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But apparently still part of the overall British command structure.



   Yes so were lot's of others ,but, the Administration was done by their own countries.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2014)

Another event:


London Socialist Historians Group 
1914-1919: Imperial War to Class War; Institute of Historical Research
25th January 2014
From Midday in the Woburn Suite, IHR, Senate House, Malet St WC1

2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War. Already well over one hundred books on the subject have been published. A voice that is largely absent however is that of the left. Of those who opposed the war, went on strike during it, and deserted from the army during the course of it
The labour movement internationally supported the First World War but a minority across a range of viewpoints from Keir Hardie to Lenin refused to go along with their Governments’ warmongering.
The war was to lead to death on an industrial scale and eventually revolution in Russia and Germany.
The Coalition Government plans to mark the 100th anniversary of the start of the war but not celebrate it as a victory. Many on the right however are demanding that it should be celebrated as such.
This conference will seek to take an alternative look at a range of aspects of World War One from those who opposed it, to the workers movements which developed during it and after it and the harsh and deathly realities of the ‘war to end all wars’

Speakers include:
Ian Birchall
Neil Faulker
George Paizis
Megan Trudell
Terry Ward


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> looking at gill and dallas' 1975 article about etaples, they cite the base commandant's war diary. and they also mention in passing that lots of soldiers from lots of units passed through etaples, so it doesn't sound like e.g. 1 south essex but perhaps a company from 1 south essex - lots of bitty groups. there may be more than one reason for there to be scanty records from most of the units - the people who wrote things like war diaries not present - while units from other parts of the empire may have been shipped to places like etaples en masse. british army units unlike e.g. anzac units might have been sent in penny packets as their homes/home bases much nearer.



Yeah.  Etaples was also a concentration point for nominal British regts fresh from the front, some of which were down to company strength, as well as being an assembly point for soldiers returning from leave, if their regt had come off the line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong: weren't Indian regiments part of the British army; and the Indian Expeditionary Forces that participated in the fighting in WW1, were commanded by British generals, and were part of the overall British military command structure?



You're half-right.
Yes, the officer class were invariably British, but the army itself was still a separate entity, as is often illustrated by the strained relations between the colonial commands and the British General Staff.



> That being the case, why would there be any greater difficulty in having records altered, of regiments staffed by Indian citizens and commanded by British officers?



A war diary is a "sacred text".  It may be that the colonial officer corps had a harder time reconciling defiling sacred texts than arse-covering careerist Whitehall Warriors did.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah.  Etaples was also a concentration point for nominal British regts fresh from the front, some of which were down to company strength, as well as being an assembly point for soldiers returning from leave, if their regt had come off the line.



It was also used as a base depot for soldiers injured in battle to receive refresher training before being either returned to their current units or re-badged into different units as casualty replacements. The instructors at Etaples were known as 'Canaries' because they wore distinctive yellow armbands and were roundly detested by returning officers and men alike.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But apparently still part of the overall British command structure.



Which has nothing to do with administration, and everything to do with operating in a unified manner to achieve strategic goals, while leaving individual structures some tactical autonomy.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 6, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> It was also used as a base depot for soldiers injured in battle to receive refresher training before being either returned to their current units or re-badged into different units as casualty replacements. The instructors at Etaples were known as 'Canaries' because they wore distinctive yellow armbands and were roundly detested by returning officers and men alike.



  The soldiers rebelled because the regime at the camp treated them  badly.
Pointing that out at the values and standards lecture never goes down well.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no you don't.
> 
> The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.
> 
> ...


You might be interested to know that there were German officers in Turkey during the murder of the Armenians who later took part in the holocaust. In fact they learnt from their experience taking back techniques and methods of killing that they later used against Jews and other victims of the Nazis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no you don't.
> 
> The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.
> 
> ...


right. so killing people is only genocide if they're unarmed. you're full of shit.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 6, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Propagandized to an extent ,but, the Germans were complete bastards to the Belgians and not just in reprisal for acts of resistance.
> Like the pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait in the first gulf war. A story which didn't happen ,didn't, mean the Iraqi's didn't commit
> atrocities.


There were very real atrocities that were condemned at the time. The burning and looting of Louvain with the deaths of hundreds of civilians is probably the best known. The Germans also exploited the Belgian population. Over a hundred thousand Belgiums were put to work behind the lines and in Germany in industries supporting the war.


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> There were very real atrocities that were condemned at the time. The burning and looting of Louvain with the deaths of hundreds of civilians is probably the best known. The Germans also exploited the Belgian population. Over a hundred thousand Belgiums were put to work behind the lines and in Germany in industries supporting the war.



I really want to consider how Emily's reports from belgium reconcile with what we know now.


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> You might be interested to know that there were German officers in Turkey during the murder of the Armenians who later took part in the holocaust. In fact they learnt from their experience taking back techniques and methods of killing that they later used against Jews and other victims of the Nazis.




Any sources?


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...germans-to-1915-armenia-genocide-8219537.html


> onstantin Freiherr von Neurath, for example, was attached to the Turkish 4th Army in 1915 with instructions to monitor "operations" against the Armenians; he later became Hitler's foreign minister and "Protector of Bohemia and Moravia" during Reinhard Heydrich's terror in Czechoslovakia. Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg was consul at Erzerum from 1915-16 and later Hitler's ambassador to Moscow.
> Rudolf Hoess was a German army captain in Turkey in 1916; from 1940-43, he was commandant of the Auschwitz extermination camp and then deputy inspector of concentration camps at SS headquarters. He was convicted and hanged by the Poles at Auschwitz in 1947.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2014)

Obsession with Jews, apologism for the far-right, a belief in being 'beyond left and right' and now Holocaust denial.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2014)

Germany was all over Turkey in this period for counter-imperialist reasons - capital was flowing in (see the construction of the Baghdad and Anatolian railway systems) as were military officers and expertise.


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

who is that aimed at?

btw, just read that one of Gove's favourite poets, Rupert Brooke, was a socialist, well a card carrying Fabian, anyway..


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 6, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> You might be interested to know that there were German officers in Turkey during the murder of the Armenians who later took part in the holocaust. In fact they learnt from their experience taking back techniques and methods of killing that they later used against Jews and other victims of the Nazis.





FNG said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...germans-to-1915-armenia-genocide-8219537.html



So they went through some process of desensitization which possibly resulted in future atrocities being even more extreme? We should maybe be looking at this process today and its influence on lifestyle? I noticed that some of the more war like images have been removed from toys/models that is possibly another aspect of all this?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 6, 2014)

Turks are still pretty angry  if you mention it and the turkish goverment is still trying to quash debate claim it wasnt that bad somebody else did it.

Not sure the current Uk state makes  any real attempts  to cover up historical crimes maybe just relies on so many instances you cant find the wood for the trees.


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

> Rudolf Hoess was a German army captain in Turkey in 1916; from 1940-43, he was commandant of the Auschwitz extermination camp and then deputy inspector of concentration camps at SS headquarters. He was convicted and hanged by the Poles at Auschwitz in 1947.



There was an interesting doc on recently, "Hitlers Children", which amongst others had Hoess's grandson on it, he was, maybe rightly, tormented by his grandfathers crimes (and his fathers endorsement and neglect) till he went to Auschwitz and met camp survivors, Israeli school children, there, etc, very moving.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 6, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Turks are still pretty angry  if you mention it and the turkish goverment is still trying to quash debate claim it wasnt that bad somebody else did it.
> 
> Not sure the current Uk state makes  any real attempts  to cover up historical crimes maybe just relies on so many instances you cant find the wood for the trees.



Going a tad off topic, under British rule massacres of indigenos Australians was one that was kept secret. Was hunting for sport one of the historical crimes or was that in South America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

"The Growth of Democracy" by Bruce Bairnsfather (Old Bill) (1917).

"Colonel Sir Valtravers Plantagenet gladly accepts a light, during a slight lull in a barrage, from a private in the Benin Rifles".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

FNG said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...germans-to-1915-armenia-genocide-8219537.html


dkyu bothered with the bit about von neurath  - höss a better candidate


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Germany was all over Turkey in this period for counter-imperialist reasons - capital was flowing in (see the construction of the Baghdad and Anatolian railway systems) as were military officers and expertise.



Yes there were a lot of German civillian contractors in the region mostly attached to banks and railway projects that were horrified and traumatised at what they witnissed, and baffled at what they saw as their own governments lack of response to it, such as providing safe haven post ww1 for key players like Talat, whom they decorated with the order of the Iron Eagle 
unaware tof the complicity of German Military advisers such as Field Marshal Von de Goltz in directing Turkish policy towards Armenia in the 19 century.Or General Bronsart military adviser to the Ottoman headquaters who repeatedly slapped down his own ambassador Wagenheims pleas for him to intervene on behalf of the Armenians


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Obsession with Jews, apologism for the far-right, a belief in being 'beyond left and right' and now Holocaust denial.


dwyer?


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> dkyu bothered with the bit about von neurath  - höss a better candidate



 Well Von Neurath was closer to having full undeniable knowledge of what was going on given his brief,
but point taken fella


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

FNG said:


> Well Von Neurath was closer to having full undeniable knowledge of what was going on given his brief,
> but point taken fella


undeniable knowledge different from participation


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> dwyer?



yea


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> undeniable knowledge different from participation


In Armenia? e2a He was primarily stationed in Iraq and Palestine and though he may well have built up a picture of what was going on he would have some ammount of plausible deniability.von Neurath on the other hand had both first hand knowledge and the Fuerers ear.

There are other figures from the German High Command that worked with Ottoman Headquarters Staff's role to consider such as that of Colonal Stange who was responsible for the restructuring and supplying with modern equiptment of Dr B.Sakirs special operation groups, who opperated along much the same lines as the  Einsatzgrupps were to later.
Or that of General Von Schellendoroff who decread special measures be taken against Armenians Conscripted into the Sultans army who were subsequently disarmed and murdered.
 Can't remember if there were any German doctors implicated in the sterillisation and injecting of Typoid infected blood in the guise of bogus innoculations,got a feeling there was though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2014)

J Ed said:


> yea


time for him to meet mr mayhem


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 6, 2014)

FNG said:


> In Armenia? e2a He was primarily stationed in Iraq and Palestine and though he may well have built up a picture of what was going on he would have some ammount of plausible deniability.von Neurath on the other hand had both first hand knowledge and the Fuerers ear.
> 
> There are other figures from the German High Command that worked with Ottoman Headquarters Staff's role to consider such as that of Colonal Stange who was responsible for the restructuring and supplying with modern equiptment of Dr B.Sakirs special operation groups, who opperated along much the same lines as the  Einsatzgrupps were to later.
> Or that of General Von Schellendoroff who decread special measures be taken against Armenians Conscripted into the Sultans army who were subsequently disarmed and murdered.
> Can't remember if there were any German doctors implicated in the sterillisation and injecting of Typoid infected blood in the guise of bogus innoculations,got a feeling there was though.



Not sure if it can be verified? However I have read that most of the mechanisms of mass murder used was adopted by the Nazis. Combatants killed or those who was targeted due to religion and location. Which is more important to those involved in politics? The same attitude is still there today? If they was killed outside of Europe or North America they valued less by our Government?


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

Pick through this,http://www.armeniansgenocide.am/images/menus/177/German.pdf

 Not sure Combatents is the right word most of the men of fighting age were conscripted into the sultans army as non combatant labour auxilleries where they were murdered prior to the main massacres, what resistance there was was mainly hand to hand street fighting with improvised weapons behind fixed positions, which German Artillery "Advisors" helped shell out of existance. Turkish and German comuniques of course used what resistance there was as a pretext.
 Van being one of the key examples


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> You might be interested to know that there were German officers in Turkey during the murder of the Armenians who later took part in the holocaust. In fact they learnt from their experience taking back techniques and methods of killing that they later used against Jews and other victims of the Nazis.



There was ongoing Ottoman/German co-operation from about 1890-onward, and it didn't stop when the empire dissolved.  IIRC, up until the empire collapsed the head of the armed forces had been a German (and the head of the Ottoman navy a Brit) for about 20 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Germany was all over Turkey in this period for counter-imperialist reasons - capital was flowing in (see the construction of the Baghdad and Anatolian railway systems) as were military officers and expertise.



Yup. Apart from any other reason, Germany wanted to make sure the Ottomans kept Russia locked out of using the Turkish Straits, which would have massively facilitated Russian trade, rather than having to ship via the Baltic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> So they went through some process of desensitization which possibly resulted in future atrocities being even more extreme? We should maybe be looking at this process today and its influence on lifestyle? I noticed that some of the more war like images have been removed from toys/models that is possibly another aspect of all this?



I think it's probably more to do with being exposed to something that, given the thinking of the time in _Junker_ circles (and bear in mind that while Germany was a unitary nation-state, it was still pretty much controlled, in matters of foreign and military policy, by Prussia), was all too easily adopted (as in Namibia) as a matter of policy when dealing with "subject populations".


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> You might be interested to know that there were German officers in Turkey during the murder of the Armenians who later took part in the holocaust. In fact they learnt from their experience taking back techniques and methods of killing that they later used against Jews and other victims of the Nazis.



You really need to back this up if you're going to say it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> So they went through some process of desensitization which possibly resulted in future atrocities being even more extreme?



Wow.  That comes pretty close to blaming the Jewish Holocaust on the Turks.

Once again.  There was no Armenian genocide.  There were massacres of Armenians, mostly carried out by Kurdish irregulars.  There were also massacres carried out by Armenians against Turkish and Kurdish civilians.


----------



## FNG (Jan 6, 2014)

All thats left is for Phil to declare himself "Winning" and retire for the night for a victory wank





> *Morphine overdose:* During the Trabzon trial series of the Martial court, from the sittings between 26 March and 17 May 1919, the Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib caused the death of children with the injection of morphine. The information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib's colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed.[56][57]
> 
> *Toxic gas:* Dr. Ziya Fuad and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits reporting cases in which two school buildings were used to organize children and send them to the mezzanine to kill them with toxic gas equipment.[58][59]
> 
> *Typhoid inoculation:* The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the Third Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzican were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood 'inactive'".[60][61] Jeremy Hugh Baron writes: "Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes. Nazim's brother-in-law Dr. Tevfik Rushdu, Inspector-General of Health Services, organized the disposal of Armenian corpses with thousands of kilos of lime over six months; he became foreign secretary from 1925 to 1938".[62]


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

FNG said:


> All thats left is for Phil to declare himself "Winning" and retire for the night for a victory wank



Here's the thing you don't seem to understand.

In order to establish that the massacre of Armenians was a genocide, holocaust or in any way comparable to what happened to European Jewry during WW2, it is not enough to establish that Kurds and/or Turks committed atrocities against Armenians.

You would also have to establish that Armenian troops committed no comparable atrocities against Kurds or Turks.

Otherwise all you have is an especially brutal war, in which all sides massacred civilians.

So.  Are you prepared to argue that Armenian troops committed no such atrocities?

(_For any neutrals reading... this should be good_)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2014)

I hate reading your posts now phil. I hate seeing your name on the end of a thread. Thanks prof.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I hate reading your posts now phil. I hate seeing your name on the end of a thread. Thanks prof.



Met your match at last.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You really need to back this up if you're going to say it.


 On top of what FNG and others have posted? The little I know is from books. There are articles, videos and books on the subject of German involvement only a few clicks away. Henry morgenthau talks about German involvement quite extensively. There is also a biography Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who was in Turkey
at the time who was well versed in what was happening. He was also an influence on Hitler though he was killed during the Munich Putsch so not directly involved in the Holocaust. VN Dadrain has a book on the subject of Gwrman involvement which is available for download if you search for it. Appendix A is about Germans present in Turkey at this time who went on to be big players in Nazi Germany.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 6, 2014)

Anyways, thisll make the Irish well popular . Prior to the German assisted 1916 uprising in Dublin the german high command acceded to Roger Casements request to recruit British army volunteers held in German POW camps to join a small Irish contingent who it was envisaged would  participate in hostilities back at home.

Heres a few of them .







Anyways, the guy second from left stayed on in Germany post war . And ended up saving Hitlers life around 1919 when an enraged mob of German troops beat the living daylights out of him following a political lecture and were just about to run the bugger through with a bayonet .

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-irish-man-who-saved-hitler-26713584.html

World history might have been very different if hed just let them at it


----------



## toggle (Jan 6, 2014)

i suppose the theory is that when you stir up enough trouble in an imperial conflict, small nations can end up with independence in the peacekeeping to surround and limit the power of the big guys. and casement sure as hell would have held no sympathy for the belgians. but the 'enemy of my enemy' thing can get carried a little far.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 6, 2014)

without envisaged german military and diplomatic assistance its doubtful whether an uprising would have gotten off the ground . Britain was the biggest empire in the world at the time, Ireland barely a speck on the big pink map . With the majority of political opinion supporting the imperial war effort to one degree or another. Without German assistance there could be not be even the remotest hope of any type of success . And without even a glimmer of hope it would be impossible to gain any traction .
More important than the direct military aid was the diplomatic aid . The german promise that if the Irish were able to even hold out for a while, and demonstrate the Irish people did actually want freedom...the Germans understandably were very reluctant to believe that was the case..then at wars conclusion acceptance of an Irish republic would be part of the terms Germany would impose on a defeated Britain . And in 1915 1916 it looked very much like Germany was going to win .

For better or worse Germany and Ireland were essentially allies in that particular conflict . The 1916 proclamation of the provisional government making that pretty clear , although not mentioning Germany specifically .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And the Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians.
> 
> Do you deny that?



The following countries officially recognize the historical events we're discussing, as being genocide:

1.Argentina12. Netherlands
2.Belgium13. Poland
3.Canada14. Russia
4. Chile15. Slovakia
5. Cyprus16. Sweden
6. France17. Switzerland
7. Germany18.Uruguay
8. Greece19. Vatican City
9. Italy20. Venezuela
10. Lebanon
11. Lithuania

The US hasn't formally recognized the events as genocide, but Obama said this:



> One day after paying a solemn visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, President Barack Obama on Tuesday called the mass killings of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1915 "one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century" but again broke a 2008 campaign promise to label the tragedy "genocide."
> "We honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire," Obama said in a written statement on Armenian Remembrance Day.
> 
> "A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests. Moving forward with the future cannot be done without reckoning with the facts of the past," Obama said in a implicit appeal for vital American ally Turkey to move closer to recognizing the massacre.





http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...mmemorate-armenian-genocide/story?id=16202151

However, 43 US states have independently recognized the Armenian Genocide.

In terms of regions, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland  recognize the genocide, as do New South Wales, Basque Country, Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands



Governments recognize all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons.

The fact that governments say one thing or another has no bearing on any case.

In any case, most governments do not call the massacre of Armenians a "genocide," so your own argument works against you.

You know all this already, do not give a shit about the topic of discussion, and are just trying to wind me up.

Why not come and laugh at Pickman's Model instead?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> World history might have been very different if hed just let them at it



Oh what has made that sudden noise?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You would also have to establish that Armenian troops committed no comparable atrocities against Kurds or Turks.



You make it sound as if Armenia was at war with Turkey.

Armenia's six provinces [vilayets] were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

The Turks caused somewhere between 1 and 2 million of its Armenian citizens to be killed, starve to death etc.

There was no war between sovereign states, as pertains to the Ottoman Empire and Armenia.


Even if you were right about that, your distinction regarding armed resistance, is specious. Poland, a sovereign country, took up arms to defend itself against Germany in WW2. After the defeat of Poland, the aim of the Reich was the destruction of Poland as a country, and of the Poles as a people.

The magnitude of this atrocity isn't somehow alleviated by pointing to the fact that the Poles had fought against the Germans.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> On top of what FNG and others have posted? The little I know is from books. There are articles, videos and books on the subject of German involvement only a few clicks away. Henry morgenthau talks about German involvement quite extensively. There is also a biography Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who was in Turkey
> at the time who was well versed in what was happening. He was also an influence on Hitler though he was killed during the Munich Putsch so not directly involved in the Holocaust. VN Dadrain has a book on the subject of Gwrman involvement which is available for download if you search for it. Appendix A is about Germans present in Turkey at this time who went on to be big players in Nazi Germany.



Yes, I know.

The part of your claim that you need to justify is your assertion that it was in Turkey that these German officers learned the killing techniques that they later applied in the Jewish Holocaust.

In your own time please.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You make it sound as if Armenia was at war with Turkey.
> 
> Armenia's six provinces [vilayets] were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
> 
> ...



You're making this up on the fly, Johnny.

The Armenians allied with Russia, and fought in the field against the Ottoman state, both as part of the Russian army and as guerrilla irregulars.  It was war.  No comparison with the Jewish Holocaust then.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You know all this already, do not give a shit about the topic of discussion,



I very much give a shit about the covering-up of genocide. To the extent that large sovereign nations attempt to pull it off, it in my opinion empowers smaller nations, like Sudan, to attempt similar things in places like Darfur, and then lie through their teeth about it, as they've seen their senior Imperial bretheren-states do in days and years past.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I very much give a shit about the covering-up of genocide.



As I said, you do not give a shit about this subject.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Even if you were right about that, your distinction regarding armed resistance, is specious. Poland, a sovereign country, took up arms to defend itself against Germany in WW2. After the defeat of Poland, the aim of the Reich was the destruction of Poland as a country, and of the Poles as a people.



Hang on a second, this is new.

Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against _Poland_?

Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Turks are still pretty angry  if you mention it



Hmmm.... I wonder why?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> .
> 
> The Armenians allied with Russia, and fought in the field against the Ottoman state, .



The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.



Yes.  So?

Are you denying that Armenian volunteer units fought as part of the Russian army in WW1?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Hang on a second, this is new.
> 
> Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against _Poland_?
> 
> Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?



Part of Poland was subsumed into Grossdeutschland. The remainder became part of a territory called the General Government, controlled by a German administration, with the ultimate aim for it to become a province comprised of ethnic Germans. The previous inhabitants were to be removed, worked to death etc - thus ultimately erasing Poland.

Poland suffered the highest civilian death rate in the war as percentage of population, mostly as a result of German atrocities, starvation etc.

Call it what you will.

Attempting to belittle other atrocities in other wars, other areas, doesn't somehow strengthen your denial of the Armenian genocide.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Are you denying that Armenian volunteer units fought as part of the Russian army in WW1?



What would Armenian volunteer units justify in terms of carrying out a genocide against Armenia?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Hmmm.... I wonder why?



Some Japanese get pretty mad if you mention Nanking.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.



Resulting possibly in the Tehcir Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law



> In May 1915, Mehmed Talaat requested that the cabinet and Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha legalize a measure for relocation and settlement of Armenians to other places due to what Talat called "the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the country" are a threat to national security.[8]"



Maybe international pressure and threats about crimes against humanity had some impact on the outcome?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Maybe international pressure and threats about crimes against humanity had some impact on the outcome?



Certainly the "terrible Turk" has been Europe's Bogeyman since the C16th.  The caricature of Turks as cruel, lustful etc can be seen right up to _Midnight Express _(which was hailed as a masterpiece in the West despite being flagrantly racist--just watch it if you don't believe me).

Unfortunately, this racism has distorted people's view of WW1 and its aftermath in Anatolia.

Iirc you are the one who first raised this subject.  Sorry if I was irate with you.  All I can advise is that you read widely on the subject with an open mind.  If you do that you'll find that the tue story is very different from what you've been led to believe.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Hang on a second, this is new.
> 
> Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against _Poland_?
> 
> Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?


 
Hold on, three million polish jews and three million polish non-jews died in WWII, there is certainly evidence that once they were done with the jews the Nazis wanted to start on the poles and they certainly were quite open amongst themselves about the fact they wanted to kill and starve enough of them to turn them into a slave population, it's something Himmler spoke about a few times, i wouldn't _necessarily_ call what happened genocide because they weren't setting about _at that point_ to kill every single polish person, but fuck me whatever it was it wasn't exactly a vicars tea party was it?

that doesn't change the fact that some poles collaborated willingly with the nazis during the war, even SS regiments etc, but fuck me i'd certainly understand why polish people today would call what happened genocide, the nazis usually viewed poles (at least the ones that werent collaborating with them) as subhuman and worthy only of slave labour


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Hold on, three million polish jews and three million polish non-jews died in WWII, there is certainly evidence that once they were done with the jews the Nazis wanted to start on the poles and they certainly were quite open amongst themselves about the fact they wanted to kill and starve enough of them to turn them into a slave population, it's something Himmler spoke about a few times, i wouldn't _necessarily_ call what happened genocide because they weren't setting about _at that point_ to kill every single polish person, but fuck me whatever it was it wasn't exactly a vicars tea party was it?
> 
> that doesn't change the fact that some poles collaborated willingly with the nazis during the war, even SS regiments etc, but fuck me i'd certainly understand why polish people today would call what happened genocide, the nazis usually viewed poles (at least the ones that werent collaborating with them) as subhuman and worthy only of slave labour



Look, if you're going to call what Germany did to the Poles "Genocide," in addition to what they did to the Jews, then you will very soon have so many Genocides on your hands that the term will lose its specific meaning, and just come to mean "massacre."

Thus the unique nature of the Jewish Holocaust will be forever obscured and lost to historical memory.

I'd have thought that you would be reluctant to see that happen.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Look, if you're going to call what Germany did to the Poles "Genocide," in addition to what they did to the Jews, then you will very soon have so many Genocides on your hands that the term will lose its specific meaning, and just come to mean "massacre."
> 
> Thus the unique nature of the Jewish Holocaust will be forever obscured and lost to historical memory.
> 
> I'd have thought that you would be reluctant to see that happen.


 
i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of _industrialised_ mass murder and it was ultimately aimed at wiping out every jew everywhere rather than in specific areas the nazis happened to invade, but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of _industrialised_ mass murder but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?



That's exactly what I think.

The Jewish Holocaust was a unique and unprecedented event (essentially because of its bureaucratic-industrial nature, as you suggest).

Many (not all) people who try to deny this, as for example by insinuating that there have been many such events, do so for anti-semitic reasons.

I can't believe you don't know this already.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That's exactly what I think.
> 
> The Jewish Holocaust was a unique and unprecedented event (essentially because of its bureaucratic-industrial nature, as you suggest).
> 
> ...


 
It's unique because it was industrialised, and because the nazis wanted to kill every jew in the world, in fact as part of their peace deals with various countries they asked for jews to be handed over afaik, they wanted their allies like japan to start on it as well, but that's not the same as saying that there haven't been other genocides ffs! can you stop saying this? there are cultures that were completely destroyed by colonialism etc, like the native americans, how is that not genocide, of course it fucking is!

is my synagogue's website anti-semitic then in its holocaust memorial when it includes a section about rwanda?? of course not! It's saying that other events need to be remembered and commemorated!

coming from someone who goes on all the time about usury as well ffs, not funny phil


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no you don't.
> 
> The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.
> 
> ...


 
They did fight back. They did kill German troops, they did blow up bridges etc, some of them resisted the Nazis until the end. It's also seriously fucking offensive to say that they just let the Nazis do it to them.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of _industrialised_ mass murder and it was ultimately aimed at wiping out every jew everywhere rather than in specific areas the nazis happened to invade, but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?



The word Hollocaust historic meaning from online dictionary:



> Middle English, _burnt offering_, from Old French holocauste, from Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos, _burnt whole_ : holo-, _holo-_ + kaustos, _burnt_ (from kaiein, _to burn_).



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holocaust

Looking at some of the atrocities in the Armenian Genocide would suggest both definitions are true? Drowning, burning, gassing, concentration camps and death marches are mentioned in most of the information available online?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 7, 2014)

I think it says something that the turks are still trying to deny bad things happened or excuse them.
 Over a million dead armenians and how many dead turks phil?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> They did fight back. They did kill German troops, they did blow up bridges etc, some of them resisted the Nazis until the end. It's also seriously fucking offensive to say that they just let the Nazis do it to them.



Interesting contribution to the argument here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans#World_War_II


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I think it says something that the turks are still trying to deny bad things happened or excuse them.



Nobody (to my knowledge) is doing either.  "The Turks" certainly are not.  They deny it was genocide, quite rightly.



likesfish said:


> Over a million dead armenians and how many dead turks phil?



Around 15 (fifteen) million.  Why do you ask?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> They did fight back. They did kill German troops, they did blow up bridges etc, some of them resisted the Nazis until the end. It's also seriously fucking offensive to say that they just let the Nazis do it to them.



Then it's a good job that I never said they didn't fight back, or any of the other rubbish that you wrongly suggest I said here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Interesting contribution to the argument here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans#World_War_II



How is that a contribution to the argument?

It seems completely irrelevant to me.  Please explain its relevance.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> the Armenian Genocide



You should stop using this phrase, because you cannot defend it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

gonna deal with post #596?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It's unique because it was industrialised, and because the nazis wanted to kill every jew in the world, in fact as part of their peace deals with various countries they asked for jews to be handed over afaik, they wanted their allies like japan to start on it as well, but that's not the same as saying that there haven't been other genocides ffs! can you stop saying this? there are cultures that were completely destroyed by colonialism etc, like the native americans, how is that not genocide, of course it fucking is!
> 
> is my synagogue's website anti-semitic then in its holocaust memorial when it includes a section about rwanda?? of course not! It's saying that other events need to be remembered and commemorated!
> 
> coming from someone who goes on all the time about usury as well ffs, not funny phil



I'll pass over your last line in silence, apart from reminding you to think before you type.

I take it you're aware of Israel's position on this, and of the reasons for that position?

Here's a member of the Knesset talking.  I don't endorse what he says, but it will show you just how odd your interpretation is:

"I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition#Position_of_Israel


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> gonna deal with post #596?



Of course.  You don't have to remind me.  On this subject I will always deal with everyone's posts.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'll pass over your last line in silence, apart from reminding you to think before you type.
> 
> I takes it you're aware of Israel's position on this, and of the reasons for that position?
> 
> ...


 
the Iraeli government has no reason for a good diplomatic relationship with turkey, not at all 

also the german government did go on and on about the jews provoking them . "jews declare war on germany!!" headlines in 1933 etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Of course.  You don't have to remind me.  On this subject I will always deal with everyone's posts.


and what a disappointment that is


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

Nazi propaganda wouldn't have worked if they'd have been like "yeah well we're evil thats why we have skulls on our helmets, we just hate jews for no reason, deal with it" 

they built on stereotypes that had been built up for generations, (including usury!) they added mythical "provocations" like the stabs in the back of november 1918, they also used real examples of jews fighting back without context (of being persecuted) to bolster up their arguments, like that guy who shot the nazi diplomat "triggering off" krystallnacht

i don't know  much about the armenian genocide but presumably the turkish gov't used provocations real and imagined to justify that as well - certainly happened in rwanda


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'll pass over your last line in silence, apart from reminding you to think before you type.
> 
> I take it you're aware of Israel's position on this, and of the reasons for that position?
> 
> ...


 
Also my interpretation is not odd, Hitler himself said when talking about the jews "who will remember the armenians" 

In my experience at religious type events its often the case that other genocides are talked about in the context of "well remember its not just about us and because of what happened we have to make sure that they are never forgotten and that it doesn't happen again to someone else"

which is a better interpretation than "yeah well they asked for it, now how about those trade deals Tayyip"


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2014)

Report on the first two meetings of the Remembering the Real World War 1 group. Cooking up nicely. Found out last night that my mate wrote that Blackadder thing posted earlier in the thread, and last night we managed to sneak this fantastic film onto  a local film festival program and we'll be looking to use that to open up some debate about the issues in that article.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> provocations real and imagined



The difference is that the Turks used real provocations, while the Germans used imagined provocations.

Which is quite an important difference.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, I know.
> 
> The part of your claim that you need to justify is your assertion that it was in Turkey that these German officers learned the killing techniques that they later applied in the Jewish Holocaust.
> 
> In your own time please.


Probably be late Thursday or Friday when I get home and can look at the books.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Around 15 (fifteen) million.  Why do you ask?


Not sure those figures you have are correct? Wikipedia states 5 million and that includes the 1.5 Armenian genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_casualties_of_World_War_I

I get a figure of approx. 2.75 million civillians dead? Another list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914_borders

It is horrible thinking about the total waste of life in both World Wars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Around 15 (fifteen) million.  Why do you ask?


source pls


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

Why would you pick the holocaust as a topic to wind people up about? Like how is it funny?

Do you know who else finds the holocaust funny? That's right.

FFS


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Why would you pick the holocaust as a topic to wind people up about? Like how is it funny?
> 
> Do you know who else finds the holocaust funny? That's right.









and dwyer did say he found some fascist ideas useful.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Not sure those figures you have are correct?



For which war?

In Turkey, what we call the "first world war" lasted 10 years (1912-1922).

Or do you mean only the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920?  Casualty estimates are approximately even iirc--under a million on each side though.

Or do you mean the Russo-Turkish War of 1878, which was notable for the many massacres of Turks committed by Armenian units of the Russian Army?

My point--surely indisputable--is that this is an extremely complicated subject, on which those who are under-informed should not venture to speak lightly, because of the possibility of giving serious offence without understanding why.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and dwyer did say he found some fascist ideas useful.



You have the mentality of Yagoda.  You fucking freak.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Or do you mean only the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920?  Casualty estimates are approximately even iirc--under a million on each side though.
> 
> My point--surely indisputable--is that this is an extremely complicated subject, on which those who are under-informed should not venture to speak lightly, because of the possibility of giving serious offence without understanding why.



I don't know why this has turned into a slanging match? Anyway Total Ottoman population at time of most peoples understanding of WW1 was possibly 21 million? Even if 5 million died that is nearly a quarter of the whole population. I take it you are talking about deaths over a longer time period? 
If we want to widen the time period for WW1 then we could also introduce the Russian Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War#Casualties


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> most peoples understanding of WW1



Most Turkish people?  Or most English people?  They see it differently you know.

It's not edifying to swap atrocity numbers, nor is it necessary to this argument.  The point--which you surely must accept by now--is that the Ottoman State and Armenians engaged in warfare, as did many other national and religious groups in the bloody chaos that reigned in Anatolia between 1912 and 1922, and that all sides massacred significant numbers of the others' civilian populations.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> I don't know why this has turned into a slanging match?



It's not a slanging match, not between you and me anyway.  But this is an issue on which I feel strongly.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Most Turkish people?  Or most English people?  They see it differently you know.


Interesting point you make about time period. When WW1 actually started could then be up for debate. It never really ended in 1918, possibly finished in the early 1920's. Or you could argue that Treaty of Versailles etc.. was just infact a ceasefire with strings attached.  So we may have one myth, as in 1914-18 is not correct timescale except in Western European involvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's not a slanging match, not between you and me anyway.  But this is an issue on which I feel strongly.


it's just a pity it's not an issue on which you feel it necessary to engage brain before posting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You're making this up on the fly, Johnny.
> 
> The Armenians allied with Russia, and fought in the field against the Ottoman state, both as part of the Russian army and as guerrilla irregulars.  It was war.  No comparison with the Jewish Holocaust then.



The fact that the Armenian military sided with the Tsarists hardly justifies the collective punishment of Armenians by the new Turkish state (or by those convenient "Kurdish irregulars" on which so much is blamed).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You have the mentality of Yagoda.  You fucking freak.


you're like that cop who came on here and said he found the notion of anarchy attractive. only with you it's third position fascism.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The fact that the Armenian military sided with the Tsarists hardly justifies the collective punishment of Armenians by the new Turkish state



Nobody claims any massacres were carried out by "the new Turkish state," which was not established until 1923.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.



TBF, they Ottomans did have good reason to fear that, and had good reasons for not wanting Russia to have yet another access point through which to menace the Ottoman empire, especially when they were also contending with the fact that a free Bulgaria gave the Serbs (and via the Serbs, the Russians) the means to menace the Ottoman west flank.  The existential threat didn't, of course, go away after the war ended, even taking into account the formation of the Soviet Union - access through the Turkish Straits into the Med was still an economic imperative, as was advancing the spread of the Soviet Union into the Russian empire's traditional client states.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Nobody claims any massacres were carried out by "the new Turkish state," which was not established until 1923.



Mmmm, the state of Israel uses that one, too.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmmm, the state of Israel uses that one, too.



Yes but since the Turkish Republic was born out of an armed struggle against the Ottoman Empire, the Turks have a far more justifiable case when distancing themselves from their predecessors.

So what we are looking at are massacres (not genocide) committed mostly by Kurds, in the service of a currently non-existent Empire.  For which modern, republican Turkey is still being blamed a century later.  The entire situation is absurd, not to mention racist.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The existential threat didn't, of course, go away after the war ended, even taking into account the formation of the Soviet Union - access through the Turkish Straits into the Med was still an economic imperative, as was advancing the spread of the Soviet Union into the Russian empire's traditional client states.



The Soviet Union was initially allied with Ataturk.  Relations cooled after Ataturk offered refuge to Trotsky, but there remains a strong tradition of pro-Soviet Turks of which Nazim Hikmet is the secular saint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yes but since the Turkish Republic was born out of an armed struggle against the Ottoman Empire, the Turks have a far more justifiable case when distancing themselves from their predecessors.
> 
> So what we are looking at are massacres (not genocide) committed mostly by Kurds, in the service of a currently non-existent Empire.  For which modern, republican Turkey is still being blamed a century later.  The entire situation is absurd, not to mention racist.


so because you say the genocide (raphael lemkin) was committed 'mostly by kurds', and not ethnic turks, it was in fact not a genocide - lemkin was iyo wrong - and the successor state to the now deceased empire should not be blamed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, they Ottomans did have good reason to fear that,.



The Nazis believed that European Jews were sympathetic to Bolshevism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Nazis believed that European Jews were sympathetic to Bolshevism.



The Nazis affected to believe that European Jews were not only sympathetic to Bolshevism, but created it too. They also affected to believe that communists in general were predominantly Jews.

The difference being that the Ottomans had a genuine ongoing strategic concern with regard to Russia, whereas the Nazis wove their manufactured concern into their strategic outlook to justify or reinforce measures they'd already decided to take.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

> While the Government of Turkey has previously acknowledged "a massacre, even a crime against humanity", it charged Armenian-Turkish journalist, Hrant Dink, with "insults to Turkishness" for writing about the incident. *In 2003 it introduced a law requiring schools to deny the massacre.*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_reparations



> In an attempt by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to comply with European Union standards, the opening up of the Ottoman land registry and deed records to the public were considered. However, on 26 August 2005, the National Security Committee of the Turkish Armed Forces forbid such attempts by stating:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscated_Armenian_Properties_in_Turkey#Current_developments

Still ongoing with a hint of denial?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yes but since the Turkish Republic was born out of an armed struggle against the Ottoman Empire, the Turks have a far more justifiable case when distancing themselves from their predecessors.
> 
> So what we are looking at are massacres (not genocide) committed mostly by Kurds, in the service of a currently non-existent Empire.  For which modern, republican Turkey is still being blamed a century later.  The entire situation is absurd, not to mention racist.



		Your talking bollocks. Its called the Armenian Genocide and is recognized as such Kurds took part in it ,but, It was Ottoman Turks who wanted rid of the Armenians and set about organizing their extermniation.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

> By Israel Charny, these 12 methods were originally called "Templates for Gross Denial of a Known Genocide: A Manual" in The Encyclopedia of Genocide, volume 1, page 168. These 12 tactics have all been followed (or perhaps more the more accurate word is pioneered) by the Turkish Government, in its genocide denial campaign.



http://www.armeniapedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Ways_To_Deny_A_Genocide


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate, missed your post earlier, i don't know enough to discuss about it in depth, not sure i want to tbh. it's not a competition.

are you armenian yourself then? I always wanted to go. They do nice food  and I used to work with armenian refugees from another conflict.

Writing system is interesting as well


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> stowpirate, missed your post earlier, i don't know enough to discuss about it in depth, not sure i want to tbh. it's not a competition.



Always been interested on a casual basis in modern history. This is quite a shocker as I was unaware of this genocide as it not really mentioned in connection with WW1.



> are you armenian yourself then? I always wanted to go.



I am told I am half Welsh, with some English, Russian and Scandinavian blood_*.*_ I am told there is a family tree and book being written online somewhere in Australia of all places


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Its called the Armenian Genocide and is recognized as such



Without being arrogant, I think I've settled this question conclusively over the last couple of pages, so I won't continue this discussion further.

But I'll finish by saying that even the most ardent advocates of the "Armenian Genocide" theory would never claim that their version is universally recognized, as you seem to imply here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> are you armenian yourself then?



Of course he's not Armenian.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Still ongoing with a hint of denial?



Would you admit to something you hadn't done?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Would you admit to something you hadn't done?



A tad cynical here but what if an apology opens the floodgate for legal claims for compensation for victims/families? 

*



			Against financial institutions
		
Click to expand...

*


> California-based lawyers Brian S. Kabateck, Vartkes Yeghiayan, Mark J. Geragos, and William Shernoff filed a series of lawsuits against American and European financial institutions in order to recover Armenian assets and insurance compensations.
> 
> 
> In July 2004, after California Legislature passed the Armenian Genocide Insurance Act, descendants of Armenian Genocide victims settled a case for about 2400 life insurance policies from New York Life written on Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.[28] Some of the life insurance policies were written as early as 1875, but were not paid after the Genocide. Around 1916-1918, the Turkish government attempted to recover for the people it had killed with the argument that there are no identifiable heirs to the policy holders, but did not succeed.[28][29] The settlement provided 20 million dollars, of which 11 million was for heirs of the Genocide victims.[28]
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_reparations#Recent_developments


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Of course.  You don't have to remind me.  On this subject I will always deal with everyone's posts.


you wouldn't want to make yourself a liar, would you phil.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Nazis believed that European Jews were sympathetic to Bolshevism.




they believed Bolshevism was jewish plot to control the entire world. As did Churchill and a few others .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> stowpirate, missed your post earlier, i don't know enough to discuss about it in depth, not sure i want to tbh. it's not a competition.
> 
> are you armenian yourself then? I always wanted to go. They do nice food  and I used to work with armenian refugees from another conflict.
> 
> Writing system is interesting as well



Appropriately enough it was an Armenian ..and a lifelong  pacifist..Missak Manouchian, who led the most ferocious resistance unit in Paris during the occupation . Which had a strong international jewish contingent among its numbers too. Almost half of them were jewish, refugees from accross Europe. The Manouchian cell carried out some devastating operations and were constantly on the go .
Missak Manouchian himself was a survivor of the Armenian genocide . He watched his brother die in front of him as a child.

http://www.marxists.org/history/france/resistance/manouchian/manouchian-group.htm


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The difference being that the Ottomans had a genuine ongoing strategic concern with regard to Russia,.



What bearing does that have on the Armenian genocide?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Without being arrogant, I think I've settled this question conclusively over the last couple of pages, so I won't continue this discussion further.
> 
> But I'll finish by saying that even the most ardent advocates of the "Armenian Genocide" theory would never claim that their version is universally recognized, as you seem to imply here.



  No you really haven't you just brought up the various excuses used by people trying to deny it as a genocide.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> No you really haven't you just brought up the various excuses used by people trying to deny it as a genocide.



_Sigh._

Alright.  Tell me which of these statements, if any, you believe to be untrue.  I put it to you that if you accept 1-5, you must also accept 6.

1.  During WW1 and until 1920, Armenian troops engaged in warfare against the Ottoman Empire, both as units of the Russian Army and as guerrillas.

2.  Armenian troops carried out many massacres of Turkish and Kurdish civilians.

3.  The massacres of Armenian civilians in Anatolia were mainly carried out by Kurdish irregular forces.

4.  The state which conducted the campaigns against Armenian civilians no longer exists.

5.  That state was in any case multi-ethnic.

6.  It is absurd to hold modern, republican Turkey to account for atrocities carried out a century ago under the direction of the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Look, if you're going to call what Germany did to the Poles "Genocide," .



Part of Hitler's Obersalzburg speech:



> *Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans*. My pact with the Poles was merely conceived of as a gaining of time. As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as 1 am now going through with in the case of Poland. After Stalin's death-he is a very sick man-we will break the Soviet Union. Then there will begin the dawn of the German rule of the earth.
> 
> The little States cannot scare me. After Kemal's [i.e. Ataturk] death Turkey is governed by cretins and half idiots. Carol of Roumania is through and through the corrupt slave of his sexual instincts. The King of Belgium and the Nordic kings are soft jumping jacks who are dependent upon the good digestions of their over-eating and tired peoples.
> We shall have to take into the bargain the defection of Japan. I save Japan a full year's time. The Emperor is a counterpart to the last Czar - weak, cowardly, undecided. May he become a victim of the revolution. My going together with Japan never was popular. We shall continue to create disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as "gentlemen" and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half maniacs who are anxious to experience the whip.
> ...



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hitler-obersalzberg.asp


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Generalplan Ost:



> The _*Generalplan Ost*_ (*GPO*) (English: Master Plan East) was a secret Nazi German plan for the colonization of Central and Eastern Europe.[1] Implementation would have necessitated genocide[2] and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale to be undertaken in these European territories, occupied by Germany during World War II. It would have included the enslavement, expulsion and extermination of most Slavic peoples in Europe. The plan, prepared in the years 1939–1942, was part of Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi movement's _Lebensraum_ policy and a fulfillment of the _Drang nach Osten_ (English: Drive towards the East) ideology of German expansion to the east, both of them part of the larger plan to establish the New Order.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Part of Hitler's Obersalzburg speech:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hitler-obersalzberg.asp



You're a strange fellow Johnny.

The account of this "speech," given in the link you provide, ends thusly:

_The speech was received with enthusiasm. Göring jumped on a table, thanked blood-thirstily and made blood-thirsty promises. He danced like a wild man. The few that had misgivings remained quiet._

Elsewhere in this "speech," Hitler promises that if Chamberlain arrives with peace proposals, he (Hitler) will kick him (Chamberlain) down the stairs.  In front of photographers.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Generalplan Ost:



Serious question for you JC3.

How many genocides have there been?  An approximation will suffice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Many (not all) people who try to deny this, as for example by insinuating that there have been many such events, do so for anti-semitic reasons.
> .



What complete and utter bullshit.

There have been a number of genocides in the world's history: Darfur and Rwanda spring immediately to mind. To claim that those who call such events 'genocide' do so for reasons of anti-Semitism, is so ridiculous as to be beyond laughable.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You're a strange fellow Johnny.
> 
> The account of this speech, given in the link you provide, ends thusly:
> 
> ...




You missed the important part, even though bolded.

*Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans*.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Serious question for you JC3.
> 
> How many genocides have there been?  An approximation will suffice.



This isn't a class full of freshmen signed up for History 101. Please don't be insulting, by continuing to act as if it were.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You missed the important part, even though bolded.
> 
> *Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans*.



Johnny, the speech is a fake.

You ask me not to treat you like a freshman in History 101.  You're not making it easy for me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

It's easy to figure out that you don't know much about the history of Poland during WW2.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> _Sigh._
> 
> Alright.  Tell me which of these statements, if any, you believe to be untrue.  I put it to you that if you accept 1-5, you must also accept 6.
> 
> ...



   1  Does not excuse genocide.
   2  As above and The Ottoman massacres was far larger in number and range.
   3   Under the Orders and direction of the Ottoman Authorities 
	4  Turkey is the direct Descendant of the Ottoman Empire
   5	With the Turks in charge 
   6   No more than blaming the Uk for the crimes of the Empire.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There have been a number of genocides in the world's history: Darfur and Rwanda spring immediately to mind.



O_kay.  _So now we have... what... _five _genocides so far?  Aren't you forgetting the British in Matabeleland?

By your criteria, history would show literally thousands of genocides.

I think that devalues the term.  I think history has only seen one genocide.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

The Stormfront website states that the Obersalzberg speech is a fake.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> O_kay.  _So now we have... what... _five _genocides so far?  Aren't you forgetting the British in Matabeleland?
> 
> By your criteria, history would show literally thousands of genocides.
> 
> I think that devalues the term.  I think history has only seen one genocide.



The genocide committed against the aboriginal peoples of the United States doesn't qualify, then?

Nor the English Genocide in Ireland?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> 1  Does not excuse genocide.
> 2  As above and The Ottoman massacres was far larger in number and range.
> 3   Under the Orders and direction of the Ottoman Authorities
> 4  Turkey is the direct Descendant of the Ottoman Empire
> ...



1.  Not applicable, genocide did not take place.
2.  Only because they won the war.  
3.  Yes.
4.  No.  The Turkish Republic was born out of armed struggle against the Ottoman Empire.
5.  Complicated.  Many races participated in Ottoman government.  The mother of the Sultan was always Greek.
6.  Agreed.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Stormfront website states that the Obersalzberg speech is a fake.



It is a fake.

Do you believe Goring danced on the table "like a wild man?"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> 1  Does not excuse genocide.
> 2  As above and The Ottoman massacres was far larger in number and range.
> 3   Under the Orders and direction of the Ottoman Authorities
> 4  Turkey is the direct Descendant of the Ottoman Empire
> ...



The genocide of the Armenians was carried out by the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It is a fake.
> 
> Do you believe Goring danced on the table "like a wild man?"



You haven't mentioned Generalplan Ost.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

The principal victims killed in Auchwitz prior to 1942, were Polish citizens of whatever faith. The focus on  Jews there ramped up in 1941/42


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You haven't mentioned Generalplan Ost.



Provide something other than a crude forgery to document it and I will.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Phil: perhaps you don't consider the mass killings of Africans for ethnic/tribal/political reasons, to be of sufficient import to be called 'genocide'?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The genocide of the Armenians was carried out by the Ottoman Empire.



Massacres of Armenians were carried out, mainly by Kurds, during a chaotic, bloody and bitter war in which all sides massacred civilians.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Provide something other than a crude forgery to document it and I will.



I'd have assumed you were well-read enough to have known about it already. If you'd like direction to reference-work books, I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Phil: perhaps you don't consider the mass killings of Africans for ethnic/tribal/political reasons, to be of sufficient import to be called 'genocide'?



OK, let's be constructive here, and see if we can really get somewhere.

Obviously we need to define "genocide."

You first?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Massacres of Armenians were carried out, mainly by Kurds, during a chaotic, bloody and bitter war in which all sides massacred civilians.



The Armenians were subjected to a genocide by the Ottomans.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, let's be constructive here, and see if we can really get somewhere.
> 
> Obviously we need to define "genocide."
> 
> You first?



You're the one who doesn't consider what happened in Rwanda to be a genocide. That leads me to believe that you have an idiosyncratic definition for the term. That being the case: _you_ first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, let's be constructive here, and see if we can really get somewhere.
> 
> Obviously we need to define "genocide."
> 
> You first?


you think lemkin fucked it up?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 8, 2014)

Bollocks rampaging bands massacaring villages one thing 
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html

Trains ferrys and plans is not a chaotic war its delibrate .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Bollocks rampaging bands massacaring villages one thing
> http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html
> 
> Trains ferrys and plans is not a chaotic war its delibrate .



Pretty much everyone in the world besides Phil and the Turks know it was a genocide. [I think the Turks know too, but just won't admit it].


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're the one who doesn't consider what happened in Rwanda to be a genocide. That leads me to believe that you have an idiosyncratic definition for the term. That being the case: _you_ first.



Alright.  

Here's the difference.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and it was Hitler's intention to wipe out every Pole in Poland, as well as every Jew.

(_Just to be clear: I don't think JC3 is correct in the above.  But for the sake of argument...)_

Hitler would not also have wanted, far less attempted, to wipe out the Polish population of, say, New York.

But Hitler _did _also want to wipe out the Jewish population of New York, and indeed of everywhere else.

That is the difference between massacre and genocide.  There has only been one genocide.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you think lemkin fucked it up?



Silence, fool.  

There is no place for you in this discussion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Silence, fool.
> 
> There is no place for you in this discussion.


so on your own terms you're a liar


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Alright.
> 
> Here's the difference.
> 
> ...




I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Hitler's rhetoric was such that the conclusion could be drawn that, given the chance, he would have wiped out world jewry. But it's arguable that Hitler was a Continental/European thinker, and his plans for the Reich centered around Europe. As such, his focus was on solving 'the jewish problem', as the Nazis called it, within the borders of what would be the Reich. That's why earlier solutions included the idea of shipping jews to Madagascar.

The Poles also presented a problem, to Hitler's thinking [along with other Slavs in other areas] - in that they were occupying lands intended for Grossdeutschland, and inhabitation by Aryans. As such, the solution for the 'Slavic problem' was a similar one - elimination.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

Not sure darfur was genocide, but Rwanda definitely was.



phildwyer said:


> Alright.
> 
> Here's the difference.
> 
> ...


 
he WANTED to but didn't suceed thank god. and wiping out every polish person in poland (which fair enough I don't think he wanted to do) would be genocide ffs!

Where are you getting that definition?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

Hitler was also interested in the idea of shipping jews to Siberia; but that idea fell through with the failure of Barbarossa.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

how could killing everyone of a certain ethnic group in a country not be genocide? Like if the tories turned round tomorrow and started killing all romanians in the country that would be genocide wouldn't it? how could it not be?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Where are you getting that definition?



It fell off the back of a lorry.

Seriously: I've given my definition.  Now it is for those who believe I am wrong to offer an alternative.  Then we can decide which is better.  And then we will have a criterion for determining the Armenian question.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously: I've given my definition.



Actually I haven't.

So here it is.  Genocide is the attempt to _exterminate_ an ethnic or racial group.

By "exterminate" I mean: kill every member of that group in the world, so that the group no longer exists.  Not for any strategic reason or practical advantage (such as _Lebensraum_) but simply because they belong to that group.

There has only been one genocide.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually I haven't.
> 
> So here it is.  Genocide is the attempt to _exterminate_ an ethnic or racial group.
> 
> ...


 
I thought that the definition of genocide was the attempt to kill everyone of a certain ethnic group in a country


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

sorry if this post is in bad taste, but if the government started killing all romanians and bulgarians living in the country, that would be genocide. According to your definition if they were doing that, and also dropped a nuclear bomb on romania and bulgaria in order to try and kill everyone it still wouldn't be genocide because they didn't want to kill all the romanians in say Texas 

but it obviously would be


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I thought that the definition of genocide was the attempt to kill everyone of a certain ethnic group in a country



By that definition, not even the Jewish Holocaust would be genocide.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> By that definition, not even the Jewish Holocaust would be genocide.


 
Yes it would, I said the attempt, they tried to kill every jew in europe 

they didn't do it though thank fuck!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> sorry if this post is in bad taste, but if the government started killing all romanians and bulgarians living in the country, that would be genocide. According to your definition if they were doing that, and also dropped a nuclear bomb on romania and bulgaria in order to try and kill everyone it still wouldn't be genocide because they didn't want to kill all the romanians in say Texas
> 
> but it obviously would be



No it would not.

On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?

Furthermore you neglect the question of motive, which is an important element in defining genocide.

Remember that I said genocide was the attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group of people, _not _for any practical advantage (as for instance to steal their land), _not _to avenge any wrong (as for instance in warfare) but simply because they belong to that particular group.

There has only been one genocide.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No it would not.
> 
> On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?
> 
> ...


 
i dunno, lots of fash thought there was good reasons for murdering the jews. there's loads of articles where they try and refute the idea they hate jews for no reason, listing all of our supposed crimes etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No it would not.
> 
> On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?
> 
> ...


 
what about the tutsis?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No it would not.
> 
> On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?
> 
> ...


 
under that defnition the holocaust wasn't a genocide then, remember the "stab in the back" and the "november criminals", the idea that jewish financiers did well out of the economic crisis, the Protocols of the elders of zion etc


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> i dunno, lots of fash thought there was good reasons for murdering the jews. there's loads of articles where they try and refute the idea they hate jews for no reason, listing all of our supposed crimes etc



Yes but they are wrong.

You do not have to believe it just because they believe it.

Rather you ought to consider such claims on their merits, accepting those that you deem legitimate, and rejecting those you consider fallacious.

Would I be correct is assuming you think the "fash" were wrong when they thought they had good reason for murdering Jews?  I would, wouldn't I?  So why do you cite such claims--which you know to be false--in your argument?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yes but they are wrong.
> 
> You do not have to believe it just because they believed it.
> 
> ...


 
But I dont believe it  It was all bollocks. The same as other claims made by people who want to commit genocide are bollocks.

It was all bollocks, that's my point  and other claims by genocidal regime like that the tutsis are cockroaches stealing our women (which was one of the claims made about them) that they control too much of the country, are bollocks as well


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> under that defnition the holocaust wasn't a genocide then, remember the "stab in the back" and the "november criminals", the idea that jewish financiers did well out of the economic crisis, the Protocols of the elders of zion etc



Yes, I remember them.

They are myths, fakes and forgeries.

They are not good reasons for massacre.

Nor do you believe they are.

So why do you mention them?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No it would not.
> 
> On what grounds do you limit your understanding of genocide to a particular geographical region?
> 
> ...



What an incredibly bizarre obfuscation.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

because you're saying that it's only genocide if it happens for no reason, they thought they had a good reason


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide? There was a right bloody mess in Eastern Europe in aftermath of WWII. Even Winston Churchill did not engage brain?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Murders_of_civilians



> Most Germans who were not evacuated during the war were expelled from East Prussia and the other former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line in the years immediately after the end of World War II, as agreed to by the Allies at the Potsdam conference, because in the words of Winston Churchill:[41]
> 
> “ Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made.
> ”
> After World War II, as also agreed at the Potsdam Conference (which met from 17 July until 2 August 1945), all of the area east of the Oder-Neisse line, whether recognized by the international community as part of Germany before 1933 or occupied by Germany during World War II, was placed under the jurisdiction of other countries. The relevant paragraph regarding East Prussia in the Potsdam Agreement is:[42]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia#Aftermath


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide? There was a right bloody mess in Eastern Europe in aftermath of WWII. Even Winston Churchill did not engage brain?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Murders_of_civilians
> ...


 
dunno about another genocide but he certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, look what happened to the crimean tartars, he also thought of sending the jews to birobidjan as well


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> But I dont believe it  It was all bollocks. The same as other claims made by people who want to commit genocide are bollocks.



No, listen.

Genocide is the attempt to exterminate all members of a racial or ethnic group, for no other reason than that they belong to that group.

That obviously (I would have thought) does not exclude the possibility that the perpetrators will attempt to rationalize their actions by giving spurious reasons for them.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide?



It's bloody genocide mania round here today.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

I think phil, your distinction is an interesting one but it doesn't really stand up. Not legally, see below,



> The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
> Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
> 
> 1) the _mental element,_ meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
> ...



​


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the _mental element,_ meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the_ physical element _which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include _both elements_to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op  snap!


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> co-op  snap!



Heh! Only took 24 pages before we got to a legal definition.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What an incredibly bizarre obfuscation.



You need to say why, Johnny.

You also need to offer your alternative definition, if you think you have a better one.

Otherwise I'm going to call Game Over on this one.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Genocide is the attempt to exterminate all members of a racial or ethnic group, for no other reason than that they belong to that group.
> 
> That obviously (I would have thought) does not exclude the possibility that the perpetrators will attempt to rationalize their actions by giving spurious reasons for them.



The rationalisations are surely inseparable from the desire to exterminate. For your definition to work, we have to be able to separate them.

Actually the "real" reason will often be pretty grubby - theft or whatever - but we don't expect people to admit this.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
> 
> Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
> 
> ...



Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?

It can include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

Right?  Or am I missing something here?


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?
> 
> It can include intending to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.
> 
> Right?  Or am I missing something here?


No. No. Yes.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> No. No. Yes.



Explain.  

Why can't the legal definition, given in full in post 705, include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members?


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Don't you think that's so broad a definition as to be meaningless?
> 
> It can include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.



It is broad - it allowed Milosevic to be charged with genocide over his conduct of the Bosnian War. But what's the alternative? Your version means that we have to believe that the perpetrators of a genocide must constantly hold in mind a desire to exterminate every member of a group everywhere and that they must have only (consciously) false beliefs about that group as their basis for doing so.

It'd be tricky to run a prosecution on that basis - you might even struggle to nail the nazis. They surely believed that the jews were evil and were out to do them down.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 8, 2014)

Phil, could you just run past me how Rwanda wasn't genocide again?


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> No. No. Yes.



I'd say, No. Yes. Not sure.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> dunno about another genocide but he certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, look what happened to the crimean tartars, he also thought of sending the jews to birobidjan as well



Another interesting link to WW1 is the Cossacks part in WW11 and later repatriation to certain death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Explain.
> 
> Why can't the legal definition, given in full in post 705, include "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members?


It does.

Here's the text in full: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm#II


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> It does.



Just as I said.

So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.

It means--doesn't it--that if (for example) Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the leg of a passing member, he would be guilty of genocide.

Appealing as the idea may be, I can't regard it as a practical or useful definition of genocide.   Can you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> Your version means that we have to believe that the perpetrators of a genocide must constantly hold in mind a desire to exterminate every member of a group everywhere and that they must have only (consciously) false beliefs about that group as their basis for doing so.



It is impossible to have a consciously false belief.

But removing the word "consciously," you describe my position correctly.



co-op said:


> It'd be tricky to run a prosecution on that basis - you might even struggle to nail the nazis. They surely believed that the jews were evil and were out to do them down.



Yes.  They believed that wrongly, and demonstrably so.

Thus my definition would have no difficulty in securing a conviction of genocide against the Nazis.

It is true that by my definition no-one but the Nazis could be convicted of genocide.

That is precisely my point.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

With all this debate over the meaning of words no wonder the world forgot.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

How would you prove that all their beliefs were bollocks? They could turn round and provide evidence? Like the idea of the blood libel, how would you go far back in history to say that every single example of that was bollocks? WE know that it is but would there be definitive evidence to show definitely that ALL of their beliefs were all bollocks, i mean its difficult enough to get a rape conviction?


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Just as I said.
> 
> So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.
> 
> ...


It doesn't say that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> It doesn't say that.



But in post 718 you say that it does.

You say that it includes "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

So does it or doesn't it?


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But in post 718 you say that it does.
> 
> You say that it includes "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.
> 
> So does it or doesn't it?


The text is clear - it does not refer to individuals.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> How would you prove that all their beliefs were bollocks?



You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?

I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that.  I'd prove it very easily.  There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks.  Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.

What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

It would be more productive to debate was it genocide or a precursor to holocaust?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

you'd end up putting through people the trauma of having to disprove genocidal beliefs as well as proving the genocide happened, so they'd end up getting away with it!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> The text is clear - it does not refer to individuals.



Oh yes it does.

It refers to "members of the group."  That means any member, not two or more.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it does mean two or more.  So if Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the legs of two of its members, he would by that definition be guilty of genocide.

So it is a very stupid definition of genocide.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?
> 
> I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that.  I'd prove it very easily.  There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks.  Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.
> 
> What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?


 
the fact that some of their allegations go back thousands of years


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> It would be more productive to debate was it genocide or a precursor to holocaust?


Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.



The "Armenian genocide" is a particularly tenacious myth about WW1.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh yes it does.
> 
> It refers to "members of the group."  That means any member, not two or more.
> 
> ...



Taken in isolation maybe albeit any real legal case would be far more complex.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The "Armenian genocide" is a particularly tenacious myth about WW1.



I have a feeling we are going around in circles here?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.



You could blame me for starting this tangent but some still actually beleive it never happened?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?
> 
> I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that.  I'd prove it very easily.  There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks.  Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.
> 
> What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?


 
Well lets say the nazis said for example, "ah yeah but look what happened in 1160, you can't refute what we said about that because there's no physical evidence any more and all the written accounts were by people sympathetic to our view!" or whatever? So although we know it was a complete load of horseshit there would be no way to refute these charges?

you would end up having to prove that absolutely *everything* said by the nazis (or whoever) was bollocks, AND THEN have to prove what they had done. I'd rather just concentrate on what actually happened


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

and besides why should victims of genocide have to prove that what was said about them was bollocks


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh yes it does.
> 
> It refers to "members of the group."  That means any member, not two or more.
> 
> ...


No. Members is plural.

I quite like the definition. It's broad enough to encompass those trying to wriggle out of genocide "we just accidentallied a million or so, it wasn't genocide cos we didn't manage to get all of them and some of them were just maimed"  but exact enough to be clear that it refers to intent to exterminate rather than the result of warfare.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 8, 2014)

Phil they loaded armenians into cattle trucks to be taken by train to a desert to be "resettled" where they were killed.
 They first killed all the armenians serving in the turkish military.
 Thats not the chaos of war thats planned.
 If it sounds like genocide its genocide


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

on a grim side note I read that the katyn masacre was carried out by one man, shooting people one by one all day. Apparently he used to cry to his grandmother after work 'I don't know if what I'm doing is right'

ffs


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

These photo are very graphic:

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/armenian-genocide-02-jpg.jpeg
http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/armenian-genocide-02-jpg.jpeg
http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/refuges_album.php


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> on a grim side note I read that the katyn masacre was carried out by one man, shooting people one by one all day. Apparently he used to cry to his grandmother after work 'I don't know if what I'm doing is right'
> 
> ffs



Really sick as holder of the Guinness World Record for 'Most Prolific Executioner". Must make mental note to boycott Guinness World Record books as clearly aimed at Kids.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 8, 2014)

NO GLORY OPEN LETTER



> Open Letter: How should we remember the first world war?
> 
> 2014 marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. Far from being a "war to end all wars" or a "victory for democracy", this was a military disaster and a human catastrophe.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

NG is the counterfire initiative around this.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 8, 2014)

NG?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

teqniq said:


> NG?


The thing you linked to - No Glory!


----------



## teqniq (Jan 8, 2014)

hahaha ok


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh yes it does.
> 
> It refers to "members of the group."  That means any member, not two or more.
> 
> ...





It's a valiant attempt phil but breaking legs (even several of them) does not constitute an attempt to "intend to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". But the definition as often with legal ones has to be drawn widely in order to allow the courts to tighten it in practise because there will be no easy definition of the concept. It's surprisingly hard to define murder when you get down to it.

But since you've picked on the example of what you've chosen to call by the derogatory term"Sioux" - by which you mean the Dakota/Lakota/Santee etc peoples of north America - I see absolutely no problem as describing their treatment by European settlers as genocidal. 

In fact your choice of language makes you a genocide-apologist.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-former-leader-found-guilty-of-genocide.html

Good to see this old bastard get sent down.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 8, 2014)

1918 is worth commerating as the end of the tragic war.
 1914 was the start but nothing worth commerating  the british empire probably couldnt avoid being sucked into it but it was hardly a fight for freedom.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> But since you've picked on the example of what you've chosen to call by the derogatory term"Sioux" - by which you mean the Dakota/Lakota/Santee etc peoples of north America - I see absolutely no problem as describing their treatment by European settlers as genocidal.



Oh fuck it, you can have the Tasmanian Aboriginals too.


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> he WANTED to but didn't suceed thank god. and wiping out every polish person in poland (which fair enough I don't think he wanted to do) would be genocide ffs!


not quite. 


Cannuk mentioned Generalplan Ost, the plan for the conquest of the east, putting lebensraum into practice. It details the planned death rates for a number of eastern european ethnic groups. of those who survived, they would either be deported east, or remain behind as slaves. the experiments on mass sterilisation performed by mengele were aimed at how this slave population might be controlled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What bearing does that have on the Armenian genocide?



_Sigh_.

It means that the Ottomans were already paranoid about their (ever-shrinking in the 19th century) borders, and that their fears extended to worrying about an Orthodox Armenia and Orthodox Armenians.  It means they'd already "othered" Armenians, and that the successor power to the Ottoman empire (which was Turkey) would be inclined to see them in that light too.


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> dunno about another genocide but he certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, look what happened to the crimean tartars, he also thought of sending the jews to birobidjan as well



there were forced population movements through the whole of Stalin's rule. Most took place either during the purges or shortly after ww2. Some were just to be somewhere else, others were moved with the knowledge that the place they were being moved to would not have been able to support that level of population, even with resources and time. Although individuals would have been able to survive, the culture of that group would not.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

The more you delve into Armenian History you can identify the similarities to the historic persecution of Jews?  No surprise then that they had a national liberation movement with a dream of a free Armenian homeland.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Armenia#Ottoman_Armenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> At the end of WWII I have a feeling that Stalin if unchecked by other members of the Allies Big Three, there would have been another genocide? There was a right bloody mess in Eastern Europe in aftermath of WWII. Even Winston Churchill did not engage brain?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Murders_of_civilians
> ...



The expulsion of ethnic Germans from various central and eastern European states post-war wasn't a genocide, insofar as while mass death occurred, it wasn't engineered.
It was pretty horrific, though.  Communities that had existed for as many as 600 years, and who spoke various archaic forms of German as pretty much a 2nd rather than 1st language, were expelled from everything they;d ever known, and were expected to make shift in Germany.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> I think phil, your distinction is an interesting one but it doesn't really stand up. Not legally, see below,
> 
> 
> ​



Pffft. phil knows better.

phil *always* knows better.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh fuck it, you can have the Tasmanian Aboriginals too.



Yep they are pretty obvious candidates. I think what you are trying to do with your definition is interesting but I don't think you can make it work. The trouble is, as you say, it makes 'genocide' a bit everyday but the sad truth might be that it is (historically speaking).


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pffft. phil knows better.
> 
> phil *always* knows better.





But he's brassy and well read. And polite.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The expulsion of ethnic Germans from various central and eastern European states post-war wasn't a genocide, insofar as while mass death occurred, it wasn't engineered.
> It was pretty horrific, though.  Communities that had existed for as many as 600 years, and who spoke various archaic forms of German as pretty much a 2nd rather than 1st language, were expelled from everything they;d ever known, and were expected to make shift in Germany.



Even before WWII ended the Soviets wanted access to a baltic sea port. There was I have read some appalling atrocities involved in the clearing of this corridor to the sea? Stallin & Churchill I think had already decided that the German population must go west?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It is impossible to have a consciously false belief.
> 
> But removing the word "consciously," you describe my position correctly.
> 
> ...



But if they don't know the beliefs they hold are false, then how can they be guilty? If they genuinely believed that they were taking their revenge against the jews for the terrible things the jews had done to Germany, surely that's ok (by your definition) - it's just another ethnically-based war, another Armenia/Turkey. 

Did Hitler really understand that his scientists' proof that jews had evolved separately from the rest of homo sapiens (and weren't actually fully human) was bollocks? I guess he believed this absolutely wholeheartedly - and he had scientific evidence to back him up.


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> Yep they are pretty obvious candidates. I think what you are trying to do with your definition is interesting but I don't think you can make it work. The trouble is, as you say, it makes 'genocide' a bit everyday but the sad truth might be that it is (historically speaking).



more so when you also consider cultural genocide, although the usages of that term can be controversial


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-former-leader-found-guilty-of-genocide.html
> 
> Good to see this old bastard get sent down.



The Yanks won't be happy.  This'll have ripples in Guatemala, and they don't want ripples on Guatemala.
Me, I've got a big shit-eating grin on.   Been waiting a long time to see Rios Montt get his!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> 1918 is worth commerating as the end of the tragic war.
> 1914 was the start but nothing worth commerating  the british empire probably couldnt avoid being sucked into it but it was hardly a fight for freedom.



We could commemorate 1914 as the largest and worst brain-fart Sir Edward Grey had while Foreign Secretary, perhaps by going and shitting on his grave.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Even before WWII ended the Soviets wanted access to a baltic sea port. There was I have read some appalling atrocities involved in the clearing of this corridor to the sea? Stallin & Churchill I think had already decided that the German population must go west?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad



Yup.
For many of the states that expelled their ethnic German minorities, above all (in post-war states whose economies were "on the floor") the decision was economic.  Expelling millions of people, mostly with what they could carry, gave those states' economies a boost in terms of expropriated goods, money and land.  We always mention the utter expropriation of German Jews, but often forget or ignore the expropriation of ethnic Germans.
That isn't to say that ethnic German communities were entirely "innocent" of Nazism - the pre-war ethnic German communities were over-represented in the Nazi hierarchy, for example - but their expulsions were mostly bald-facedly political and economic, as well as a collective punishment _pour encourager les autres_ in a part of the world where ethnic populations pre-existed most state borders.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> Yep they are pretty obvious candidates. I think what you are trying to do with your definition is interesting but I don't think you can make it work. The trouble is, as you say, it makes 'genocide' a bit everyday but the sad truth might be that it is (historically speaking).



OK, I do see your point.

But I still think it's vitally important to distinguish the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides, because of its bureaucratic-industrial procedures, pseudo-scientific rationale, entirely civilian victims, location in an allegedly "modern," self-consciously "advanced" society and, last but certainly not least, its scale.

It's not really comparable to the Armenian, Tutsi or Sioux tragedies for all the above reasons, and more.

I suppose we can agree to call it "the Holocaust," and extend the term "genocide" more widely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, I do see your point.
> 
> But I still think it's vitally important to distinguish the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides, because of its bureaucratic-industrial procedures, pseudo-scientific rationale, entirely civilian victims, location in an allegedly "modern," self-consciously "advanced" society and, last but certainly not least, its scale.
> 
> ...


you could of course adopt the internationally accepted definition of genocide:



> genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> • (a) Killing members of the group;
> • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
> ...


http://www.oas.org/dil/1948_Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide.pdf


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

co-op said:


> But if they don't know the beliefs they hold are false, then how can they be guilty? If they genuinely believed that they were taking their revenge against the jews for the terrible things the jews had done to Germany, surely that's ok (by your definition) - it's just another ethnically-based war, another Armenia/Turkey.



Again, I see your point.  The difference I would note is that the things the Armenians had done to the Kurds were _physical.  _While the things the Jews had allegedly done to the Germans were _metaphysical _or (which comes to the same thing) "financial."

But then again the moral difference is that the former things were real and the latter unreal.  The Nazis' inability to tell reality from unreality compounds their crimes rather than excuses them.



co-op said:


> Did Hitler really understand that his scientists' proof that jews had evolved separately from the rest of homo sapiens (and weren't actually fully human) was bollocks? I guess he believed this absolutely wholeheartedly - and he had scientific evidence to back him up.



You bet.  In fact I would argue that the Nazi Holocaust is an indictment of science in general.  But not here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We could commemorate 1914 as the largest and worst brain-fart Sir Edward Grey had while Foreign Secretary, perhaps by going and shitting on his grave.


not really fair to the relatives of those buried nearby who would have to negotiate a pile of shit the size of dwyer's ego when visiting graves.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you could of course adopt the internationally accepted definition of genocide



Read the thread, fool.  That was three pages ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Again, I see your point.  The difference I would note is that the things the Armenians had done to the Kurds were _physical.  _While the things the Jews had allegedly done to the Germans were _metaphysical _or (which comes to the same thing) "financial."
> 
> But then again the moral difference is that the former things were real and the latter unreal.  The Nazis' inability to tell reality from unreality compounds their crimes rather than excuses them.
> 
> ...


so what you're in fact saying is that what the coalition government is doing to people through their use of atos and the withdrawal of benefits is in fact unreal. which it is, but not in your intended sense. this is taking your 'argument' and applying it to a different situation to show you bereft of any sort of reasoned position.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're in fact saying is that what the coalition government is doing to people through their use of atos and the withdrawal of benefits is in fact unreal. which it is, but not in your intended sense.



Are you mad?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Are you mad?


no. but you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not really fair to the relatives of those buried nearby who would have to negotiate a pile of shit the size of dwyer's ego when visiting graves.



The new  "highest mountain in the UK" within very short order, then!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 8, 2014)

> Even before WWII ended the Soviets wanted access to a baltic sea port. There was I have read some appalling atrocities involved in the clearing of this corridor to the sea? Stallin & Churchill I think had already decided that the German population must go west?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad


 
The 'evacuation' of Germans from East of the Elbe is the largest ethnic cleansing in history; between 10-12 million iirc.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, I do see your point.
> 
> But I still think it's vitally important to distinguish the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides, because of its bureaucratic-industrial procedures, pseudo-scientific rationale, entirely civilian victims, location in an allegedly "modern," self-consciously "advanced" society and, last but certainly not least, its scale.
> 
> ...


 
i agree it's unique for some of those reasons, with the advance of technology probably won't be long till it happens again tho. there's already evidence that north korea has got death camps and gas chambers and people (the families of criminals) are being sent there to be killed, only not on a wide scale.

give it time tho. that's why we need a communist revolution or we'll all be fucked.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> i agree it's unique for some of those reasons, with the advance of technology probably won't be long till it happens again tho. there's already evidence that north korea has got death camps and gas chambers and people (the families of criminals) are being sent there to be killed, only not on a wide scale.
> 
> give it time tho. that's why we need a communist revolution or we'll all be fucked.



Didn't they try that in North Korea?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Didn't they try that in North Korea?


 
I mean real communism not some fuckin stalinist/state capitalist nightmare.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, I do see your point.
> 
> But I still think it's vitally important to distinguish the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides, because of its bureaucratic-industrial procedures, pseudo-scientific rationale, entirely civilian victims, location in an allegedly "modern," self-consciously "advanced" society and, last but certainly not least, its scale.
> 
> It's not really comparable to the Armenian, Tutsi or Sioux tragedies for all the above reasons, and more.



I think you could stick the destruction of the native peoples of the USA and Australia/Tasmania into all of the categories you list above, although I suppose you could argue that they were not 'entirely civilian' because the distinction didn't really exist (although of course there was - some - armed resistance by jews in Nazi-occupied lands too). 

I think the main difference is that the various genocides carried out by - e.g. - British settlers are rather more embarrassing than The Holocaust which the Germans have - very sportingly imo - agreed to take the full blame for, unlike just about any other historical perpetrator. But political/cultural embarrassment apart, there's not much difference between any of these really.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

And actually the dominant opinion these days is that north korea's government is closer on an ideological level to the far-right.


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Again, I see your point.  The difference I would note is that the things the Armenians had done to the Kurds were _physical.  _While the things the Jews had allegedly done to the Germans were _metaphysical _or (which comes to the same thing) "financial."
> 
> But then again the moral difference is that the former things were real and the latter unreal.  The Nazis' inability to tell reality from unreality compounds their crimes rather than excuses them.



But from a Nazi point of view the crimes of the jews (being metaphysical) were _worse_, since part of the philosophical point of Nazism was to reject materialism in favour of idealism. The jews polluted the ideal of purity - and there was good evidence that they did this quite systematically (if you were a Nazi).

I mean they swung for it, but even though I agree with the verdict it's obviously victors justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The 'evacuation' of Germans from East of the Elbe is the largest ethnic cleansing in history; between 10-12 million iirc.



IIRC Gita Sereny reckoned that if you counted those who died in the resettlement camps after expulsion, as well as those who died _en route_, the death count would be about a million higher than is generally recognised.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I mean real communism not some fuckin stalinist/state capitalist nightmare.


Stalin the fascist dictator destroyed the true meaning of communism?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Stalin the fascist dictator destroyed the true meaning of communism?


 
i don't think he was a fascist although there were similarities between his regime and fascism (there are similarities between neoliberal capitalism and fascism as well but it's not fascist). my point was about north korea. and i also don't think he destroyed the meaning of communism. people like to blame it all on him but it was earlier than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> i don't think he was a fascist although there were similarities between his regime and fascism (there are similarities between neoliberal capitalism and fascism as well but it's not fascist). my point was about north korea. and i also don't think he destroyed the meaning of communism. people like to blame it all on him but it was earlier than that.


=> lenin


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> => lenin


 
well yeah.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> well yeah.


Doesn't anyone want to make a bid for Trotsky in this diversion?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2014)

Lenin had a problem in trying to please all involved ?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Otherwise I'm going to call Game Over on this one.



Go ahead. You aren't going to ever admit anything different here.

Doesn't change the fact of the genocide against the Armenians.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

> *Excerpt from the*_* Convention on the Prevention and
> Punishment of Genocide*_
> 
> *"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> ...



http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

It seems to me you're confusing the terms 'genocide' and 'Holocaust'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
> 
> It seems to me you're confusing the terms 'genocide' and 'Holocaust'.


very easy for the academic to confuse.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> on a grim side note I read that the katyn masacre was carried out by one man, shooting people one by one all day. Apparently he used to cry to his grandmother after work 'I don't know if what I'm doing is right'
> 
> ffs



Not true.

 Polish officers were  actually killed in more than one location. Some were killed at the NKVD prison at Kalinin. They were shot individually in the neck while two other NKVD soldiers held their arms. The officers held at Kozel'sk were taken in batches of several hundred  to Gniazdovo station and then bused to Katyn, where they were shot en masse and put in mass graves. Around the same time, Polish officers were being killed in Kiev, Kharkov and Kerson. 18,000 prisoners were killed, of which 10,500 were ethnic Poles. Burial sites are still being discovered.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Sioux tragedies .




What is the 'Sioux tragedy'?

The estimates of the reduction in the aboriginal population in the Americas from pre-contact populations to the aboriginal population in 1900,  varies from 90 - 99% reduction.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You bet.  In fact I would argue that the Nazi Holocaust is an indictment of science in general.  But not here.



How about the development of the Gatling gun, and its role in the killing of aboriginal Americans?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How about the development of the Gatling gun, and its role in the killing of aboriginal Americans?



We did the thing that he projected,
The caravan grew disaffected,
And Sin and I consulted ;
Blood understood the native mind.
He said : " We must be firm but kind."
A mutiny resulted.
I never shall forget the way
That Blood upon this awful day
Preserved us all from death.
He stood upon a little mound,
Cast his lethargic eyes around,
And said beneath his breath :
"Whatever happens we have got
The Gatling Gun, and they have not."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> We did the thing that he projected,
> The caravan grew disaffected,
> And Sin and I consulted ;
> Blood understood the native mind.
> ...



'Maxim Gun'


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Maxim Gun'



I should have known you'd be too sharp.

Are you a Belloc fan then?  I loves him I does.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I should have known you'd be too sharp.
> 
> Are you a Belloc fan then?  I loves him I does.



When George's grandmamma was told
That George had been as good as gold
She promised in the afternoon...

I recited it at the schools competition in I think Grade 5...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I should have known you'd be too sharp.
> 
> Are you a Belloc fan then?  I loves him I does.


a fan of right wingers. i thought as much.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a fan of right wingers. i thought as much.



He was not a right-winger, fool.

You are though.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When George's grandmamma was told
> That George had been as good as gold
> She promised in the afternoon...
> 
> I recited it at the schools competition in I think Grade 5...



Always keep a-hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Always keep a-hold of nurse
> For fear of finding something worse.



There must be something to that whole 'young minds are fertile for learning' thing. I can still recite most of it from memory.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I should have known you'd be too sharp.
> 
> Are you a Belloc fan then?  I loves him I does.



No he was a cunt,did some funny poems though


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> No he was a cunt,did some funny poems though



Most good poets are wankers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He was not a right-winger, fool.
> 
> You are though.


the problems with you are a) you're full of shit; b) you're full of fail & c) you're easily caught out. from the oxford dnb article on belloc:
_
Belloc entered the post-war period ‘an unhappy and a disappointed man’, in Morton's words (Morton, 118); to his existing resentments were added disgust with public affairs and sorrow at personal losses. Two books from the 1920s develop some of his basic ideas. Europe and the Faith (1920) sets out a mythologized reading of European history: true civilization has been preserved by the Latin Catholic nations as the legacy of Rome, with France the senior partner; Belloc is hostile to the protestant nations and ignores the Orthodox ones. The Roman Catholic church has continued and transformed the Roman empire; he argues ‘that the Catholic Church which accepted it in its maturity caused it to survive, and was, in that origin of Europe, and has since remained, the soul of our Western civilization’ (p. 163). England, which Belloc loved, was a special case; it had been a province of the empire but was lost to the barbarians; then it was redeemed by a thousand years of communion with Christian Rome. Europe and the Faith is a work of personal mythmaking, written with passion and energy, rather than of accurate historiography.

In The Jews (1922) Belloc argues that the Jews are an essentially alien people who cannot be successfully assimilated in Christian societies; he refers to the Jews with respect and even admiration and denies that he is antisemitic. There is no doubt, though, that that was the case, as is evident from his novels and references in his essays and verse. He rejects any suggestion of persecuting or expelling the Jews and proposes that they should be recognized as a special community, with the rights and responsibilities of resident foreigners; this is, in effect, an extension of the ancient institution of the ghetto. Despite its conciliatory tone, the book is offensive as well as unconvincing; it reflects not just personal prejudice but Belloc's adherence to the attitudes of the French right, evident in his lifelong belief in the guilt of Dreyfus. The deepest cause of his antisemitism seems to have been the ancient Christian hostility to the Jews as deicides.

Belloc's qualities as a writer are much more happily expressed in two other books of the 1920s. The Cruise of the ‘Nona’ (1925) is in the relaxed, digressive vein of travel writing first evident in The Path to Rome. It recalls a voyage which he made round the coast of England in his small boat on the eve of war in 1914. Belinda (1928) is a romantic novella subtitled ‘A Tale of Affection in Youth and Age’; it has a fairy-tale setting in early Victorian England and is written in a sparkling pastiche of the minor fiction of the period. It possesses a delicate charm and tenderness, and is quite unlike most of his writing._


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Most good poets are wankers.



I got given one of his books as a child, it was funny but disturbing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the problems with you are a) you're full of shit; b) you're full of fail & c) you're easily caught out. from the oxford dnb article on belloc



Where does it say he was a right-winger, fool?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I got given one of his books as a child, it was funny but disturbing.



Funny _because _disturbing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

He was a proper cunt. He was part of some society specifically set up to hate Jews.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Funny _because _disturbing.



I found that story of the girl being squashed by a statue a bit grim


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He was a proper cunt. He was part of some society specifically set up to hate Jews.



Presumably that explains why Pickman's Model is so fascinated by him.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

And that girl who got killed by a balloon


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

Wtf was that kid getting eaten by a lion about? He had a bit of a depraved imagination, as a child of 6 or so his book freaked me out a bit.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Wtf was that kid getting eaten by a lion about?



He hadn't gone a yard when--Bang!
With open Jaws, a lion sprang,
And hungrily began to eat
The Boy: beginning at his feet.
Now, just imagine how it feels
When first your toes and then your heels,
And then by gradual degrees,
Your shins and ankles, calves and knees,
Are slowly eaten, bit by bit.
No wonder Jim detested it!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I got given one of his books as a child, it was funny but disturbing.


The same could be said of Edward Lear and Ogden Nash, not to mention Harry Graham.



frogwoman said:


> Wtf was that kid getting eaten by a lion about? He had a bit of a depraved imagination, as a child of 6 or so his book freaked me out a bit.


That book of cautionary verse was intended as a parody of early highly moralistic and "improving" reading matter for children.

BTW it might be worth bearing in mind that every single bit of gore in Roald Dahl's fiction for children was tested on his own children.  They sometimes wanted far more gruesome bits than he felt comfortable writing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Where does it say he was a right-winger, fool?


the bit i underlined. but there's also this little gem:

_Although he admired Mussolini, Belloc detested Hitler, particularly the German's anti-Jewish ravings, and he was outspoken with anger and pity when his prophecy fromThe Jews began to come true within his lifetime._
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/hilaire-belloc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He was a proper cunt. He was part of some society specifically set up to hate Jews.


one of the reasons, i imagine, why dwyer loves him so.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the bit i underlined. but there's also this little gem:
> 
> _Although he admired Mussolini, Belloc detested Hitler, particularly the German's anti-Jewish ravings, and he was outspoken with anger and pity when his prophecy fromThe Jews began to come true within his lifetime._
> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/hilaire-belloc



He shouldn't have fucking written it then


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Presumably that explains why Pickman's Model is so fascinated by him.


you used to be a much better troll than you are now


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

toggle said:


> there were forced population movements through the whole of Stalin's rule. Most took place either during the purges or shortly after ww2. Some were just to be somewhere else, others were moved with the knowledge that the place they were being moved to would not have been able to support that level of population, even with resources and time. Although individuals would have been able to survive, the culture of that group would not.



A Russian friend who is Koryo-saram was born in Tashkent.  Her grandparents were deported with the entire Soviet Korean population to the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan from the Russian Far East for fear of collaborating with the Japanese in Manchuria. 

The Soviet government's treatment of certain populations or national groups as a whole was devastating from the point of view of the Stalinists, as it was it bound up in the Stalinist conception of socialism itself.

I know you don't think this, but it's unwise to think of the 1930s terror as just 'the purges,' as in the removal of Communist Party members and important people from government institutions, or to see it as just a cynical reorganisation of the bureaucracy by Stalin, as it focuses on the terror only partially.  The three state security 'mass operations' affected a huge number of other people.

When the terror was at its height, nearly 700,000 people were put to death within two years (that's from official Soviet documentation, not a figure pulled out of Robert Conquest's arse), and most of them were just ordinary people deemed to be anti-social elements in the new Soviet society in which the foundations for socialism had been laid and a massive and in their minds sincere defence (an inevitability,) of that socialism was mounted. 

But that's the deaths.  When you came to its attention, the Stalinist government didn't just come for you, it came for your family.  A Stolypin carriage awaited them while you met a bullet.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> And actually the dominant opinion these days is that north korea's government is closer on an ideological level to the far-right.



It's an interesting view, but not a dominant one, is it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 9, 2014)

Another group of Soviet citizens purged by Stalin were his own troops who were returned to the USSR following captivity by the Germans.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 9, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> It's an interesting view, but not a dominant one, is it?


 Tbf at that level of horror left and right dont really matter.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 9, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Another group of Soviet citizens purged by Stalin were his own troops who were returned to the USSR following captivity by the Germans.



Possibly worried that some may be subversives? Interesting that on the other side of the pond McCarthyism took root.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> It's an interesting view, but not a dominant one, is it?



It's a completely nutty view if you ask me.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 9, 2014)

Wasn't sure where to put this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/world-war-1-foundation-year.319256/#post-12837788 but it's relevant to this thread I think.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Tbf at that level of horror left and right dont really matter.



No offence, but I don't really value your opinion on this stuff.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's a completely nutty view if you ask me.



Well, I was thinking of the period of Japanese colonialism in Korea and its influence on Korean society even when the Communists were installed by the Soviet army (I may be wrong but I think frogwoman is stretching Brian Myer's opinion as being mainstream).  Mind you. Imperial Japan from the interwar years wasn't fascist, was it? 

I think Myer's views are interesting, but I'm more into the safer Stalinised Marxism-Leninism and traditional Korean male-dominated authoritarianism converging in some form, while being aware that DPRK society has, in some respects, gone beyond the bounds of what a Communist would consider Marxist-Leninist 'socialism.'  Or did do.  The DPRK government officially made it known it had jettisoned such a thing years ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Well, I was thinking of the period of Japanese colonialism in Korea and its influence on Korean society even when the Communists were installed by the Soviet army (I may be wrong but I think frogwoman is stretching Brian Myer's opinion as being mainstream).  Mind you. Imperial Japan from the interwar years wasn't fascist, was it?
> 
> I think Myer's views are interesting, but I'm more into the safer Stalinised Marxism-Leninism and traditional Korean male-dominated authoritarianism converging in some form, while being aware that DPRK society has, in some respects, gone beyond the bounds of what a Communist would consider Marxist-Leninist 'socialism.'  Or did do.  The DPRK government officially made it known it had jettisoned such a thing years ago.



I don't know Myer.  I suppose one could argue that North Korea is authoritarian, racist-nationalist and has a personality cult--the leader of which espouses an idiosyncratic official ideology.  But none of those alone, nor even all of them together, qualify a state as "far right" or even "right wing."  One might say much the same, albeit in far less extreme form, about Ataturk's Turkey and many other regimes.

I tend towards the view that NK is yet another of those instances which the Left/Right dichotomy is manifestly inadequate to describe.

I will say though, that according to my South Korean mate (who despises them), the Kim dynasty is extremely popular in the North.  Largely I gather because of its founder's role in the wartime resistance.  Again the parallel that suggests itself is with Ataturk.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

His view is that Japanese colonialism and what he sees as Japanese fascism had a significant influence on the formation of DPRK, other than just Soviet-installed Stalinism.  That is what I thought frogwoman was referring to.  She's been reading his book The Cleanest Race recently.  I don't think DPRK is far-right.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> His view is that Japanese colonialism and what he sees as Japanese fascism had a significant influence on the formation of DPRK, other than just Soviet-installed Stalinism.  That is what I thought frogwoman was referring to.  She's been reading his book The Cleanest Race recently.  I don't think DPRK is far-right.



Just took a look on Amazon, seems fascinating.

I did know that the Japanese occupation influenced Kim, but I'd thought it was a case of him defining his regime against theirs, rather than imitating them.  But I suppose its a fine line etc. 

I see no reason to call him either far-right or far-left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Just took a look on Amazon, seems fascinating.
> 
> I did know that the Japanese occupation influenced Kim, but I'd thought it was a case of him defining his regime against theirs, rather than imitating them.  But I suppose its a fine line etc.
> 
> I see no reason to call him either far-right or far-left.


so you thought that being defining his regime against them would not involve him being influenced by them. what a sorry excuse for an academic you are.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you thought that being defining his regime against them would not involve him being influenced by them.



Pickman's, read what you have written here again please.

Do you see that it makes no sense?  

Do you see that it bears no relation to the message to which you are supposedly responding?

Do you acknowledge it as the meaningless gibberish of an apparent madman?

If so, we can talk.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Pickman's, read what you have written here again please.
> 
> Do you see that it makes no sense?
> 
> ...


1) you seem to think that you know fucking everything when as is repeatedly apparent you know fuck all. 2) this would not matter so much if you could reason, but as is apparent from this exchange, you can't.

if someone defines themselves in opposition to something - be that kim and the japanese or the occident and orient - then they are being influenced by them in their own self-definition.

now fuck off.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if someone defines themselves in opposition to something - be that kim and the japanese or the occident and orient - then they are being influenced by them in their own self-definition.



And that, fool, is precisely what I said.  Look:



phildwyer said:


> I did know that the Japanese occupation influenced Kim, but I'd thought it was a case of him defining his regime against theirs, rather than imitating them



See?

Since you are evidently incapable of comprehending simple written English, I fear there can be little benefit for you in remaining on ths thread.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you used to be a much better troll than you are now


Better troll, worse debater.  I can live with that changing, as could you.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 9, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Another group of Soviet citizens purged by Stalin were his own troops who were returned to the USSR following captivity by the Germans.



 And some partisans who were just deemed a bit independent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And that, fool, is precisely what I said.  Look:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


read at work repent at leisure. now, while you've got that glow from getting one up on me, how's about you look back and respond to #633. i have been waiting some time.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> read at work repent at leisure. now, while you've got that glow from getting one up on me, how's about you look back and respond to #633. i have been waiting some time.



Oh very well.



Pickman's model said:


> so because you say the genocide (raphael lemkin) was committed 'mostly by kurds', and not ethnic turks, it was in fact not a genocide - lemkin was iyo wrong - and the successor state to the now deceased empire should not be blamed.



1.  The fact that the Armenian massacres were mostly carried out by Kurds has no bearing on the question of whether they count as genocide.

2.  Earlier in the thread I said that I would accept the term "genocide" to describe those massacres, so long as the same term is used to describe the massacres of Poles, Irish, Sioux, Tasmanians and so on.  By this definition history shows thousands of genocides.

3.  Of course the modern Turkish republic cannot be blamed for actions carried out a century ago under the direction of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh very well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the question is whether the massacres meet the internationally accepted definition of genocide adopted by the united nations in 1948. perhaps you could identify where you feel it falls short of that definition.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the question is whether the massacres meet the internationally accepted definition of genocide adopted by the united nations in 1948. perhaps you could identify where you feel it falls short of that definition.



Already done so, several times, at great length, a few pages back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Already done so, several times, at great length, a few pages back.


then you'll have no trouble either identifying the posts or reprising the answer


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> then you'll have no trouble either identifying the posts or reprising the answer



Posts 583 through 791, inclusive.

The answer is complicated.  But in a virtually unprecedented display of U75 logic, everyone finally managed to agree on it.  Except you it would seem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Posts 583 through 791, inclusive.
> 
> The answer is complicated.  But in a virtually unprecedented display of U75 logic, everyone finally managed to agree on it.  Except you it would seem.


my post 767: reply pls.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> my post 767: reply pls.



Oh must we really?  Well alright, I suppose so, since you ask:



Pickman's model said:


> you could of course adopt the internationally accepted definition of genocide



Why?  We've already agreed that it is stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Oh must we really?  Well alright, I suppose so, since you ask:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  We've already agreed that it is stupid.


where do you consider it to fall short?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> where do you consider it to fall short?



You'll really have to read the thread.

I answer this beginning at post 711 and running through post 821.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> A Russian friend who is Koryo-saram was born in Tashkent.  Her grandparents were deported with the entire Soviet Korean population to the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan from the Russian Far East for fear of collaborating with the Japanese in Manchuria.
> 
> The Soviet government's treatment of certain populations or national groups as a whole was devastating from the point of view of the Stalinists, as it was it bound up in the Stalinist conception of socialism itself.
> 
> ...



ty.

I've covered the period in passing, but not in any detail. more looking at the effect it had on the state of the armed forces in the late 30s. hence I've read parts of Conquest, but not much more. but I did look more at why he was criticized. At the time he wrote, he was accused of hugely exagerating the numbers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You'll really have to read the thread.
> 
> I answer this beginning at post 711 and running through post 821.


the problem is: you don't. but never mind. apart from your series of evasions you've also shown yourself to be one of the world's shittest liars. not been a top few days for you here, unless you consider making yourself look like a fascist-friendly liar a job well done.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem is: you don't.



As everyone can clearly see for themselves, I do:



phildwyer said:


> So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.
> 
> It means--doesn't it--that if (for example) Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the leg of a passing member, he would be guilty of genocide.
> 
> Appealing as the idea may be, I can't regard it as a practical or useful definition of genocide.



And so we see that you are lying.

Furthermore:



Pickman's model said:


> not been a top few days for you here



As a matter of fact, this thread has been one of those rare occasions on which all the principle participants actually managed to reach agreement. 

All of them, that is, except one. 

You.

Fool.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2014)

ah pickmans, it appears to be your turn to get the dwyer treatment of 'everyone agrees with me other than you'.

which might be slightly more effective if he wasn't so blatantly obvious about it and it wasn't such an overused tactic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> As everyone can clearly see for themselves, I do:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


twat. i asked: where does this definition fall short? you seem to think that saying where it is too long is saying where it falls short.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

toggle said:


> ah pickmans, it appears to be your turn to get the dwyer treatment of 'everyone agrees with me other than you'.



On this thread?

Well that's easily settled innit. 

I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees that there have been many genocides, and that the Armenian massacres were one, but also that there has only been one Holocaust.

Anyone (other than Pickman's) with 10 (ten) or more posts on here disagree?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> twat. i asked: where does this definition fall short? you seem to think that saying where it is too long is saying where it falls short.



And now you lapse into gibberish again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> On this thread?
> 
> Well that's easily settled innit.
> 
> ...


i think you'll find there have been many, many holocausts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And now you lapse into gibberish again.


i said: where does it fall short - that is, where is the definition too narrow. you seem to think it too wide.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> On this thread?
> 
> Well that's easily settled innit.
> 
> ...


so you were lying when you said that the armenian massacres were not a genocide. good of you to admit it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find there have been many, many holocausts.



Name two, fool.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Name two, fool.


1) under the headline "the late insurrection in spain", the times of 11/5/1846 (p. 7) mentioned 'the sad holocaust of leon, borso, and montes de oca";

2) the genocide of the jews in europe during the second world war.


----------



## toggle (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees.........




what they are agreeing atm is that it's well worth putting up with the times pickmans nitpicks one of their comments, just so they get to watch this.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 1) under the headline "the late insurrection in spain", the times of 11/5/1846 (p. 7) mentioned 'the sad holocaust of leon, borso, and montes de oca";
> 
> 2) the genocide of the jews in europe during the second world war.



What an utterly incredible, hapless, ignorant, Googling Fool you truly are.

You are seriously comparing these two, are you?

Alright, this should be good.  What is it about your first example that qualifies it as a "holocaust," apart from the fact that the _Times _used the word in 1846?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> What an utterly incredible, hapless, ignorant, Googling Fool you truly are.
> 
> You are seriously comparing these two, are you?
> 
> Alright, this should be good.  What is it about your first example that qualifies it as a "holocaust," apart from the fact that the _Times _used the word in 1846?


fuck me but you're thick as pigshit, in lenin's immortal phrase. for you the word holocaust has but one meaning, the second example i provided. for everyone else, however, it has a second meaning, which was the general usage until the jewish genocide - a sacrificial offering.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

that's shut you up you cunt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 9, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Possibly worried that some may be subversives? Interesting that on the other side of the pond McCarthyism took root.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism



Yes, they were worried about spies; but also that soldiers who had been in contact with western values - even in a prison camp - were 'infected'.

McCarthy's witch-hunts were terrible things; but not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-POWs but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes, they were worried about spies; but also that soldiers who had been in contact with western values - even in a prison camp - were 'infected'.
> 
> McCarthy's witch-hunts were terrible things; but not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-POWs but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.


there are lots of terrible things which are not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-pows but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...sed-of-social-engineering-over-WW1-plans.html


The latest row follows a briefing to Australian journalists by Whitehall officials that no events were being planned to mark their country’s contribution and that internal discussions on the plans do not mention Australia or New Zealand. The briefing disclosed, instead, that officials were concentrating on promoting the role played by so-called New Commonwealth countries, those which achieved independence since 1945.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 9, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Just took a look on Amazon, seems fascinating.
> 
> I did know that the Japanese occupation influenced Kim, but I'd thought it was a case of him defining his regime against theirs, rather than imitating them.  But I suppose its a fine line etc.
> 
> I see no reason to call him either far-right or far-left.



When he talks of Japanese influence it's to do with people living for years under colonial rule. When the new authorities in the north were faced with personnel shortages those people were used to help run that part of the country.

Kim Il-Sung was favoured by the Soviet authorities but belonged to an external faction of guerillas who had spent years fighting the Japanese in Manchuria, a faction of the Communists that was the least sophisticated in terms of understanding Marxism-Leninism compared to others. Those being Communists who had remained in Korea throughout the war and were concentrated near the southern capital, Koreans who joined the Chinese at Yan'an, and later politically-reliable Soviet Koreans who were sent to provide assistance.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 9, 2014)

toggle said:


> what they are agreeing atm is that it's well worth putting up with the times pickmans nitpicks one of their comments, just so they get to watch this.



It's worth it because Dwyer is the internet equivalent of syphilis. Just when you think he's finally been banished he returns, more unpleasant and unwelcome than ever.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 9, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> It's worth it because Dwyer is the internet equivalent of syphilis. Just when you think he's finally been banished he returns, more unpleasant and unwelcome than ever.



And infecting the brain, not just the sexual organs.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> And infecting the brain, not just the sexual organs.



Phil, your posts may infect the brain but so does motor neurone disease and I don't look forward to encountering that either.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> infecting the brain.



So far I've proven resistant to the 'There Was No Armenian Genocide' strain of the illness.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2014)

toggle said:


> ah pickmans, it appears to be your turn to get the dwyer treatment of 'everyone agrees with me other than you'.
> 
> which might be slightly more effective if he wasn't so blatantly obvious about it and it wasn't such an overused tactic.



I've just found this thread. 

Does he have masses of PMs of support?

F O D.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 10, 2014)

Btw: Phil.

I think you can be, at times, annoying, abstruse, obstreperous, condescending and intransigent.

However, to compare you to one of the great plagues of the world [syphilis] is to attribute to you more weight and impact than you in fact possess.

I hope you don't mind my saying so.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2014)

Many decent people with syphilis don't deny genocide, tbh I wonder if this Armenian genocide denial isn't a proxy for another kind of denialism

Either way it's shit and boring as fuck


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2014)

BTW, have we discussed the Assyrian genocide yet?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2014)

Guess we find out the not-so-reluctant neo-fascist view on that next


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So far I've proven resistant to the 'There Was No Armenian Genocide' strain of the illness.


"Genocide" is one of those hyperbolic words that means something different to the way it's used. It means to kill a genus or an entire race of people. It more usually means to try to kill an entire race, or even more usually a great many of them. I guess because we don't have a word for killing a great many people, genocide is the word we use for that. But it isn't it. It annoys me in the same way that "unique" is used to mean rare. And so "very rare" becomes "very unique", which is nonsense. I guess actual genocide would be something like "total genocide", which is a tautology.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 10, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> "Genocide" is one of those hyperbolic words that means something different to the way it's used. It means to kill a genus or an entire race of people. It more usually means to try to kill an entire race, or even more usually a great many of them. I guess because we don't have a word for killing a great many people, genocide is the word we use for that. But it isn't it. It annoys me in the same way that "unique" is used to mean rare. And so "very rare" becomes "very unique", which is nonsense. I guess actual genocide would be something like "total genocide", which is a tautology.



Lots of people here don't believe that 'race' is a real thing.

By your definition, is attempting to kill off the Tutsi tribe, genocide?


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Lots of people here don't believe that 'race' is a real thing.
> 
> By your definition, is attempting to kill off the Tutsi tribe, genocide?


No, you'd have to do more than just try. I wouldn't like to get into an argument about what a race is. Armenians and Tutsis works for me.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> "Genocide" is one of those hyperbolic words that means something different to the way it's used. It means to kill a genus or an entire race of people. It more usually means to try to kill an entire race, or even more usually a great many of them. I guess because we don't have a word for killing a great many people, genocide is the word we use for that. But it isn't it. It annoys me in the same way that "unique" is used to mean rare. And so "very rare" becomes "very unique", which is nonsense. I guess actual genocide would be something like "total genocide", which is a tautology.



At last the voice of reason.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

laptop said:


> Does he have masses of PMs of support?



As a matter of fact I do.

But that's not relevant here.  I haven't claimed victory, or anything like it.  On the contrary, I have been pursuaded to modify my position to a significant degree.  What I do claim, because it is true, is that every single poster who has contributed significantly to this thread has finally reached agreement.

And you must admit, in the Urban context, that's a remarkable achievement.

Once again in case you missed it.  Our position is now that there were literally thousands of genocides throughout history, but only one Holocaust.

Unless any coherent dissenting voice is raised today, I think we can consider the matter closed.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Many decent people with syphilis don't deny genocide



Name one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes, they were worried about spies; but also that soldiers who had been in contact with western values - even in a prison camp - were 'infected'.
> 
> McCarthy's witch-hunts were terrible things; but not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-POWs but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.



The NKVD did this in Ukraine to civilians after the Germans were pushed back.  basically, if you were alive, you hadn't resisted the occupiers strongly enough, and your punishment was a bullet in the head or, if you were really "lucky", the gulag.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> As a matter of fact I do.
> 
> But that's not relevant here.  I haven't claimed victory, or anything like it.  On the contrary, I have been pursuaded to modify my position to a significant degree.  What I do claim, because it is true, is that every single poster who has contributed significantly to this thread has finally reached agreement.
> 
> ...


so what you're saying is that you're sorry for denying the armenian genocide.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

given the famine, the war and the above ^^^ Ukraine must have been virtually depopulated ay one point


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> "Genocide" is one of those hyperbolic words that means something different to the way it's used. It means to kill a genus or an entire race of people. It more usually means to try to kill an entire race, or even more usually a great many of them. I guess because we don't have a word for killing a great many people, genocide is the word we use for that. But it isn't it. It annoys me in the same way that "unique" is used to mean rare. And so "very rare" becomes "very unique", which is nonsense. I guess actual genocide would be something like "total genocide", which is a tautology.



A "total" genocide would be a completed genocide.  Most of what we call "genocides" were *attempted* genocides.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A "total" genocide would be a completed genocide.  Most of what we call "genocides" were *attempted* genocides.



That's not the definition that Raphael Lemkin got adopted - based in significant part on the Ukrainan experience.

Genocide *is* "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group … "


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> given the famine, the war and the above ^^^ Ukraine must have been virtually depopulated ay one point



Parts of the land (millions of acres) were left pretty much fallow for several years immediately after the war, which was "handy" for post-war reinforcement of the Russian minority (something the Russo-centric Kremlin tried to do everywhere AFAIK).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The NKVD did this in Ukraine to civilians after the Germans were pushed back.  basically, if you were alive, you hadn't resisted the occupiers strongly enough, and your punishment was a bullet in the head or, if you were really "lucky", the gulag.


 I didnt' know that.

Unfortunately, the Soviets were also killing Ukrainians before the war, as well.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Parts of the land (millions of acres) were left pretty much fallow for several years immediately after the war, which was "handy" for post-war reinforcement of the Russian minority (something the Russo-centric Kremlin tried to do everywhere AFAIK).



Large parts of former Russian Front battlefields, most notably Kursk, have also been left well alone because they're still thickly sown with unmapped minefields. What was then the 'Kursk Salient' still has around 100 square kilometres that are still in need of being cleared. 

Which tends to make the annual ploughing an exciting experience.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

laptop said:


> That's not the definition that Raphael Lemkin got adopted - based in significant part on the Ukrainan experience.
> 
> Genocide *is* "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group … "



We've just spent half the thread dealing with this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I didnt' know that.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Soviets were also killing Ukrainians before the war, as well.



I know. Guess where one side of my maternal family is from?
Half of them starved to death during the holodomor, most of the rest were killed by the _einsatzgruppe_ that swept through the territory a decade later.


----------



## toggle (Jan 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Lots of people here don't believe that 'race' is a real thing.



I think that's because race was defined on spurious biological differences. We can now look more at what the actual differences are through examining DNA, but from what I've seen, those are more useful for considering population migration patterns than any attempt to define one people as biologically different from another. The concept of race as a shortcut for describing a whole range of ethnocultural considerations might still be useful as long as the way in which the term is being used is understood, but the distinctions of what is and isn't a group are better described through something like imagined communities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

out of curiosity has anyone investigated the war records of the forebears of prominent members of the coalition like one m. gove and i, duncan smith?


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 24, 2014)

WW1 to us is the equivalent time distance as the napoleonic wars were to them - it's a bit presumptuous to try and get in their headspace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> WW1 to us is the equivalent time distance as the napoleonic wars were to them - it's a bit presumptuous to try and get in their headspace.


gove's a non-starter anyway. not sure why you're bringing up the napoleonic wars tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity has anyone investigated the war records of the forebears of prominent members of the coalition like one m. gove and i, duncan smith?



You mean you don't know about Dunked-in Shit's war hero fighter pilot dad Wilfred Duncan Smith, who dined out for decades on how he flew on the last fighter mission (IIRC from Malta over n.Africa) before the war ended?
Turns out that while his plane flew the mission, it was with someone else in the pilot's seat.  A fact proven last year when the actual pilot's son found his late dad's logbook, which he generously gave to the IWM. 

Looks like Dunked-in Shit's family has form for mendacity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> WW1 to us is the equivalent time distance as the napoleonic wars were to them - it's a bit presumptuous to try and get in their headspace.



Not really. A damn sight more changed between the early 19th and early 20th century in terms of military strategy, tactics and hardware, than between the early 20th and 21st centuries.  The key differences are purely in man-portable weapons and sidearms. Everything else (planes, self-propelled artillery etc) is just "evolutionary".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> . A damn sight more changed between the early 19th and early 20th century in terms of military strategy, tactics and hardware, than between the early 20th and 21st centuries.".



The differences between WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, militarily speaking, are marked.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 25, 2014)

Still slitting hairs over use of language 

This is starting to derail the whole point of this thread?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. A damn sight more changed between the early 19th and early 20th century in terms of military strategy, tactics and hardware, than between the early 20th and 21st centuries.  The key differences are purely in man-portable weapons and sidearms. Everything else (planes, self-propelled artillery etc) is just "evolutionary".




Interesting, maybe the first modern Industrial War was the U.S. Civil War in the mid 19th century. Possibly a dress rehearsal for WW1 ?

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x1stmodw.htm


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Parts of the land (millions of acres) were left pretty much fallow for several years immediately after the war, which was "handy" for post-war reinforcement of the Russian minority (something the Russo-centric Kremlin tried to do everywhere AFAIK).


Bit of a derail: Which goes a long way to explain the problems a large proportion of Ukrainians have with Russia's interference at the moment. It's also a big problem in the Baltic states, with a significant minority of ethnic Russians, many of them descendants of those brought in to fill the gaps created by sending Baltic nationals to the Gulag,  stirring the shit with a lot of backing from Moscow.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The differences between WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, militarily speaking, are marked.



Well done on completely missing my point!


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Interesting, maybe the first modern Industrial War was the U.S. Civil War in the mid 19th century. Possibly a dress rehearsal for WW1 ?
> 
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x1stmodw.htm



If you mean two at least at the start fairly industrialised states flailing at each other ineffectivly in mass slaughter you'd be right
Niether side in the acw had enough trained soldiers to even train their forces


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 25, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If you mean two at least at the start fairly industrialised states flailing at each other ineffectivly in mass slaughter you'd be right
> Niether side in the acw had enough trained soldiers to even train their forces



Was the CSA "fairly industrialized?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If you mean two at least at the start fairly industrialised states flailing at each other ineffectivly in mass slaughter you'd be right
> Niether side in the acw had enough trained soldiers to even train their forces



The economies of the confederate states were mostly based on agriculture and extractive stuff (coal, mostly).  Industrialisation was far more rife in the union states. Calling both of them "fairly industrialised" is a bit of an over-statement.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 25, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Niether side in the acw had enough trained soldiers to even train their forces



Few countries enter major wars with large, well-trained standing armies, with some obvious exceptions.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2014)

Interesting piece this morning by Hugh Sykes on R4's 'Broadcasting House' looking at Franco-German anti-war poetry, and he specifically referenced Jean Jaurès' (& Keir Hardie's) calls for a General Strike to prevent the war, and Jaurès' assassination by Raoul Villain 3 days before war was declared between the two countries.

It's up on the website, now......here it is:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rdh2k

_*"If some one oppresses me, my companions or me, I know how to handle a rifle and have learned contempt for danger; tyrants watch out, from now on the working class has only one country...their own."

Henri Guilbeaux
*_​Good piece from Sykes.


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2014)

Paxman's 'Great War' series on BBC1 is much better than I thought it would be, (though in tonight's episode he makes clear he thought the war was basically justified), there is some balance, conscientious objecters are shown and the Glasgow Rent Strikes and Red Clydeside. There are some incredible facts and secret history such as the fact that of the over 2 million who were conscripted, one milllion applied for exemption including a tripe butcher, next week covers the way the state interfered in people's sex lives, and just like the Taliban/Iran, etc , there were patrols over-seeing the sexual behaviour of young people!

for me, the acid test of balance will be if he covers the troop mutinies, I followed a link off here and was amazed at the scale of them.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 4, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Interesting, maybe the first modern Industrial War was the U.S. Civil War in the mid 19th century. Possibly a dress rehearsal for WW1 ?
> 
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x1stmodw.htm


 You could make a case for the Crimean War being the 1st Industrial war as well,first to use the railways,telegraph etc.


----------



## Harry Patch (Feb 13, 2014)

Opposing the official commemorations of the start of World War I and opposing future wars

12.00 - 1.00 pm, this Saturday, February 15 at the Bank of Ideas (Occupy London’s new space) 238 Grays Inn Road, WC1X 8HB Chancery Lane/King’s Cross tube

Meeting organised by ‘Remembering the Real World War I’







The next ‘Remembering the Real World War I’ meeting will be 7.30 pm, Thursday February 20, 88 Fleet St (next to St. Bride’s Church) EC4 1DH

For further meetings, articles, films etc. see http://therealww1.wordpress.com/
See the Occupy London website for other events at the Bank of Ideashttp://occupylondon.org.uk/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2014)

Internment camps for germans in the UK



> As the centenary approaches of the outbreak of the First World War, Simon Buck of Eastside Community Heritage invites support for a local initiative in London’s East End to remember the treatment meted out to the tens of thousands of German nationals living in Britain at that time:





> Eastside Community Heritage, based in Ilford, will be running school workshops, oral histories of both German descendants and those with strong local memories, as well as a public exhibition of our findings in early August. Anyone interested in being involved in the project are more than welcome to join our motley crew of local historians.
> 
> On the centenary of the First World War, stories such as these must be told to remember the sheer totality of the war, even so far from the trenches. Here at Eastside Community Heritage, we intend to ensure the memories and lessons learnt from this history are passed on to those living two hundred years from the start of the war. I implore anyone who has memories of their own, or passed down from their families, of Germans in East London during the First World War to contact us to share their history with us before it is lost by the tides of time.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2014)

Paxman's series on tonight, I wonder if he will mention the mutinies, he did mention the Derby family who were prosecuted for attempting to blow up Lloyd George


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Internment camps for germans in the UK




I think I remember that post from years ago, interesting stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2014)

Steer clear of this myself.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Steer clear of this myself.



Why? Cos it's Paul Mason? I think it sounds like it would make for some pretty amazing telly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why? Cos it's Paul Mason? I think it sounds like it would make for some pretty amazing telly.


Let's do it ourself then. Paul can help. If he's up for it.

But let be honest, a BBC prod sound around for 40 mins of what paul mason took from it it pretty worthless. The same revolutionaries is the same. So many better things to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

Also, nice of paul to write the script and the over-narrative and we get to fund it. Cheers paul.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 18, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Interesting, maybe the first modern Industrial War was the U.S. Civil War in the mid 19th century. Possibly a dress rehearsal for WW1 ?
> 
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x1stmodw.htm


Also the first documented by film (stills)


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2014)

Well, the last episode , sadly no mention of the mutinies, in fact according to Paxo in 1918 it was all hands to the pump with energised successful recruitment campaigns, even the formerly strike prone Welsh Miners working to the bone for the war effort, the war changed the poor's lives for the better, no mention of failure of 'the land fit for heroes, general strike, etc, it's basically been a form of whigs view of history: though he did cover strikes, attempted assassinations, conchies, the pity of war was well covered and the images of the facially disfigured were heart breaking and will linger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> Also the first documented by film (stills)



Nope, that was the Crimean war, which ended 5 years before the American Civil War started.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why? Cos it's Paul Mason? I think it sounds like it would make for some pretty amazing telly.


doesn't seem to mention africa


----------



## toggle (Feb 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, that was the Crimean war, which ended 5 years before the American Civil War started.



Nods. One bloke with a camera at crimea iirc.He got an interesting mix of pictures 

there were many, many more of the civil war, but afterwards people wanted glass for greenhouses more than they wanted the images.

do you know if there was any film footage earlier than the boer war?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2014)

toggle said:


> Nods. One bloke with a camera at crimea iirc.He got an interesting mix of pictures



Roger Fenton.  Also well-known then and since for his still lifes (some of which still, even in reproduction, look almost 3-dimensional (yes, I'm a fan!).



> there were many, many more of the civil war, but afterwards people wanted glass for greenhouses more than they wanted the images.
> 
> do you know if there was any film footage earlier than the boer war?



Not that I know of.


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2014)

Canada's offer, got the tone absolutely right, imo,  i would like to see Nurse Edith Cavell on the coin, executed for 'assisting the enemy' by the Germans.


----------



## treelover (Feb 22, 2014)

Proposed Edith Cavell coin


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> given the famine, the war and the above ^^^ Ukraine must have been virtually depopulated ay one point





ViolentPanda said:


> Parts of the land (millions of acres) were left pretty much fallow for several years immediately after the war, which was "handy" for post-war reinforcement of the Russian minority (something the Russo-centric Kremlin tried to do everywhere AFAIK).



 Spent an afternoon machine gunning an abandoned church tower in a Ukraine training area years ago. When we finally took the village we asked the Ukrainian translator with us about the history of the place. Thinking it would be like the Imber village on Salisbury plain (where the army kicked the locals out to practice for d-day and never let them back ) 
   The Russians came and shot some villagers then the Germans came and killed a lot then the Russians came back and shot the survivors for being collaborators. We were told. On expressing our horror for desecrating the village.
  "It is not a problem their are hundreds of villages like this!" We were told.
 Area was also littered with anti-tank mines  as well as debris from the cold war.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Proposed Edith Cavell coin


you like spies on your coins then


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you like spies on your coins then



She wasn't a spy though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> She wasn't a spy though.


she had been recruited by sis


----------



## likesfish (Feb 22, 2014)

Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."[18

Not really an ideal spy


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> she had been recruited by sis



cavell also got a much fairer trial than the kangaroo court which ordered the shooting of the less virtueous and Anglican Mata Hari.


----------



## stowpirate (Feb 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> she had been recruited by sis



Just more dangerous than being in the front line. Ironic it was treason and not spying?


----------



## stowpirate (Feb 23, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> cavell also got a much fairer trial than the kangaroo court which ordered the shooting of the less virtueous and Anglican Mata Hari.



Didn't she seal her own fate by exaggerating under questioning?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Just more dangerous than being in the front line. Ironic it was treason and not spying?


 are you saying she was.not a spy?


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 23, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Just more dangerous than being in the front line. Ironic it was treason and not spying?



	We invade your country and if you do anything to resist us we will shoot you for treason!


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 23, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> cavell also got a much fairer trial than the kangaroo court which ordered the shooting of the less virtueous and Anglican Mata Hari.



 Well they still intended to shoot her from the start so hardly fair.
		If the Germans didn't shoot her might encourage further acts of resistance. If they do shoot her the world see them as the cruel evil bastards that their regime was. Not actually much of a dilemma for the Germans was it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> She wasn't a spy though.



Technically, she was someone providing information to British intelligence, rather than actually "spying", but she was nonetheless working for British intelligence.


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Technically, she was someone providing information to British intelligence, rather than actually "spying", but she was nonetheless working for British intelligence.




   Such as there are hundreds of thousands of Germans in Belgium  in a big trench if you look out of your trench you might see them?
Not exactly war ending stuff was it?
   Sorry just had to sit through an int brief which boils down to we might be murdered by terrorists ,but, almost certainly won't be ,but, just in case be careful out there.. So really want to smack a spook about now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> We invade your country and if you do anything to resist us we will shoot you for treason!


yes because the british never executed sir roger casement for treason


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they still intended to shoot her from the start so hardly fair.
> If the Germans didn't shoot her might encourage further acts of resistance. If they do shoot her the world see them as the cruel evil bastards that their regime was. Not actually much of a dilemma for the Germans was it.


can you name a regime not composed of cruel evil bastards?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 23, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well they still intended to shoot her from the start so hardly fair.
> .



shed admitted her guilt from the beginning, so it seems fair enough



> If the Germans didn't shoot her might encourage further acts of resistance. If they do shoot her the world see them as the cruel evil bastards that their regime was. Not actually much of a dilemma for the Germans was it



they were no more cruel and evil than the regimes that shot Ms Hari, in fact less so if you want to start totting up death tolls.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 23, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> We invade your country and if you do anything to resist us we will shoot you for treason!




this particular country was Belgium wasnt it. Gallant little Belgium that invaded the congo and did stuff like this to the locals, often just for not performing their slave labour duties hard enough
















I think those particular kids didnt meet their rubber quota that week. And the Anglo Belgian India Rubber company chopped their hands and feet off for it.

Roger Casement became known as a world renowned humanitarian after exposing these Belgian atrocities. That didnt stop Britian from executing him for resisting the occupation of his own country.


----------



## andysays (Feb 24, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> this particular country was Belgium wasnt it. Gallant little Belgium that invaded the congo and did stuff like this to the locals, often just for not performing their slave labour duties hard enough...



And so because some, possibly many, Belgians were responsible for atrocities in the Congo, you're arguing that all of them were collectively guilty and got what they deserved when the German state invaded a neutral country and executed/murdered/carried out their own atrocities on those who resisted.

Well done Casually Red, just when I thought you couldn't fall any further in my estimation...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> this particular country was Belgium wasnt it. Gallant little Belgium that invaded the congo and did stuff like this to the locals, often just for not performing their slave labour duties hard enough
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think you'll find that the congo was for most if not all the period before the first world war the personal possession of the belgian monarchy and not a belgian colony as such


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find that the congo was for most if not all the period before the first world war the personal possession of the belgian monarchy and not a belgian colony as such



It became an official Belgian colony in 1908, IIRC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> It became an official Belgian colony in 1908, IIRC.


cheers


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find that the congo was for most if not all the period before the first world war the personal possession of the belgian monarchy and not a belgian colony as such



no, i dont think I will. It became an official Belgian colony sometime around 1908 . Im surprised you didnt know that .


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> no, i dont think I will. It became an official Belgian colony sometime around 1908 . Im surprised you didnt know that .


you haven't understood my post


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2014)

Bbc4 history of the war starts this evening. I wonder if the shots of Sarajevo on the path of Franz Ferdinand's last journey deliberately focused on the German army of occupation European peace keepers


----------



## vanya (Feb 25, 2014)

I tend to agree with General Flashman in George Macdonald Fraser's book Mr American:

"Mr Franklin asked the General what he thought of the war situation. The old man shrugged. 

"Contemptible - but then it always is. We should stay out and to hell with Belgium. After all it's stretching things to say we're committed to them and we'd be doing them a favour - and the Frogs too." 

"By not protecting them you mean? I don't quite see that"

"You wouldn't - because like most idiots you think of war as being between states - coloured blobs on the map. You think if we can keep Belgium green, or whatever colour it is, instead of Prussian blue, then hurrah for everyone. But war ain't between coloured blobs it's between people... Imagine yourself a Belgian - in Liege say. Along come the Prussians and invade you. What about it? - a few cars commandeered, a shop or two looted, half a dozen girls knocked up, a provost marshal installed and the storm's passed. Fierce fighting with the Frogs, who squeal like hell because Britain refuses to help, the Germans reach Paris, peace concluded and that's that. And there you are, getting on with your garden in Liege. But" - the General waved a bony finger. " Suppose Britain helps - sends forces to aid little Belgium - and the Frogs - against the Teuton horde? What then? Belgian resistance is stiffened, the Frogs manage to stop the invaders, a hell of a war is waged all over Belgium and north east France, and after God knows how much slaughter and destruction the Germans are beat - or not as the case may be. How's Liege doing? I'll tell you - it's a bloody shambles. You're lying mangled in your cabbage patch, your wife's had her legs blown off, your daughters have been raped, and your house is a mass of rubble. You're a lot better off for British intervention aren't you?" He sat back grinning sardonically. 

"By that reckoning," said Mr Franklin, "no one would ever stand up to a brute or a bully"

"Course they would - when it was worth while. You don't remember the war of 1870 - when those same Germans marched on Paris. Smallish war- but suppose we'd been helping the Frogs then? It wouldn't have been over half so quick, and God knows how many folk would have died who are still happily going about their business in Alsace and Lorraine. Same thing today - we should simply tell the Kaiser that if his fleet puts its nose out of the Baltic we'll send it to the bottom - that satisfies the Frogs up to a point, since it guarantees ther northern coast, it satisfies the Kaiser who'll swallow his pride for the sake of keeping us out of the war, and it save his pretty little ships as well. And five years from now, Liege will be doing rather well - whether it's got a German provost marshal still or not. And that won't matter a damn, to people whose main concern is eating, drinking, fornicating, making money and seeing their children grow up safe and healthy"


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Bbc4 history of the war starts this evening. I wonder if the shots of Sarajevo on the path of Franz Ferdinand's last journey deliberately focused on the German army of occupation European peace keepers




I noticed that, had to do a double take, I didn't know that troops were still there, though I wouldn't call them an army of occupation

the WW1 History series seems quite low key and maybe low budget.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Bbc4 history of the war starts this evening. I wonder if the shots of Sarajevo on the path of Franz Ferdinand's last journey deliberately focused on the German army of occupation European peace keepers



Wasn't it Austro-Hungarian peacekeepers?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't it Austro-Hungarian peacekeepers?



That was then, this is now.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 27, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Interesting, maybe the first modern Industrial War was the U.S. Civil War in the mid 19th century. Possibly a dress rehearsal for WW1 ?
> 
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x1stmodw.htm



I remember AJP Taylor, citing the Franco - Prussian War 1870 -1871 as the rehearsal to WW1. Saying the lessons learned about charging across open fields at cannon and machine guns were not heeded.
The first conflict with killing on an industrial scale.

http://francoprussianwar.com/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, that was the Crimean war, which ended 5 years before the American Civil War started.



First war photos were taken by John McCosh, and the conflict was the Second Sikh War.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/A/ap_mccosh.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2014)

He's the first known war photographer we can put a name to but there are photos from the Mexican war a few years before his.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 27, 2014)

Wasn't the real cause of WW1 the Berlin - Baghdad Railway?
The change of the German Navy from coal to oil fired boilers or is this an oil grab conspiracy?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2014)

I read that too, but a far as I can see its bollox, a simplistic highlighting of a single point of imperialist conflict which was just one amongst a plethora of interconnected inter imperial tensions.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 1, 2014)

apparently the BBC had a debate between Niall Ferguson and Max Hastings the other day. Balance appears to consist of "one person to make the imperialist case for war, the other to make the imperialist case against it"


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Technically, she was someone providing information to British intelligence, rather than actually "spying", but she was nonetheless working for British intelligence.



And, as such, working behind their lines under civilian cover and without diplomatic immunity, the Germans were perfectly entitled to shoot her under the international law of the time. If she was passing information to SIS then she was spying and, if she'd been a German caught behind British lines, night well have suffered the same fate as 11 German spies shot by the British at the Tower of London.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

Dear friends

You are invited to:

A Remembering the Real WW1 London

FREESCHOOL

Saturday 18th May, 11.30 – 5.00pm

Venue: no 88 Fleet Street, London, EC4 1DH.
Nearest tube: Blackfriars

The plan is to have short introductory talks followed by open discussions.

As it stands there are proposed sessions on:

• World War 1, its relevance today; why Capitalism Needs War

• Mutinies, women’s protests and revolutions

• Countering Cameron’s Commemorations

• War Today: Ukraine, Putin and more…

But other suggestions are welcome: we are not ‘experts’,  we have some
historical knowledge, but are always ready to learn. We see this
freeschool as an opportunity for us all to learn from each other, and
maybe come up with ideas to counter the government’s plans for
glorification of the First World War.

All welcome, this event is free, but donations would be gratefully
received on the day.
Disabled access is unfortunately poor…

This event is organised by Remembering the Real WW1 (London). We are a
small group of activists, historians and rebels, part of a growing network
of groups and individuals working to highlight the histories of the Great
War that official ‘commemorations’ will sweep under the carpet.

For more information email us on: therealww1@riseup.net

Or check our blog: therealww1.wordpress.com


----------



## Harry Patch (Apr 20, 2014)

*Here's the programme for the Real World War One Free School*

*Sunday 18 May at No. 88 Fleet Street*(entrance in St. Brides Avenue), London EC4 1DH (Blackfriars or Chancery Lane Tube)

The official accounts and commemorations of the anniversary of World War One mask the real social history of the period. This conference is a chance for us to educate ourselves about the protests, strikes, mutinies and revolutions that preceded, provoked and, eventually, ended the war. We will also discuss how best to oppose both the official commemorations and future wars. Please bring food to share if you can.

11.30am (for 12 noon start) - 1pm *WORLD WAR ONE AND ITS RELEVANCE TODAY*

 Why did the war start: Imperialism? The reassertion of masculinity? An attempt to forestall European revolution?

 Why did so many support the war?





 Did World War One ever really end? Why does capitalism need war?


 1.30-3pm *WOMEN’S PROTESTS, MUTINIES AND REVOLUTIONS*

 Why were the first mass protests of the war started by women?

 Did politicians keep the war going to prevent the Russian Revolution from spreading?

 Did mutinies in the Russian, French and German armies end the war? What about the rebellions in the British army?


3.15-4.15pm *UKRAINE, PUTIN AND WAR IN EUROPE TODAY?*

 Was the Maidan Square uprising a revolution - or a fascist coup?

 Should we take sides between Putin and the West?

 Will the Ukrainian crisis lead to another European conflict? 


4.30-6pm *COUNTERING CAMERON’S COMMEMORATIONS*

 Why is Cameron so keen to celebrate World War One?

 How do we celebrate the mutinies and revolutions of the period instead?

 How do we counter the official commemorations without disrespecting the dead?


We hope to have ‘Real WW1’ meetings on the 3rd Thursday of each month at No. 88 Fleet Street.

Please see *therealww1.wordpress.com *for information about futuremeetings and events.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2014)

Couple of Houseman events



> *INTERNATIONAL CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS’ DAY EVENT *
> 
> ‘Objection Overruled’ and ‘Comrades in Conscience’ with David Boulton and Cyril Pearce
> Thursday 15th May, wine reception 6.30pm, talks from 7pm, free entry
> ...






> *Writings against the First World War’ with Bruce Kent and A.W. Zurbrugg*
> Wednesday 18th June, 7pm
> Entry £3, redeemable against any purchase
> 
> ...



Too much emphasis on pacifism and conscientious objectors in counter-events i think. Let's see if we can bring some other stuff to the table.


----------



## brogdale (May 1, 2014)

Saw this in the latest 'Verso' catalogue...comes out in the next few months I think. Could be interesting...anyone know of Newton?

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1591-the-darkest-days


----------



## Harry Patch (Jun 6, 2014)

* Franz Ferdinand’s assassination anniversary: Anti-war walk and film 27-28 June, *

*100 years since the assassination of Franz Ferdinand: 

A TOUR OF WHITEHALL – remembering the victims and opponents of World War 1 
Saturday 28 June, 1.30pm, Parliament Square *

The official commemorations for the start of WW1 will focus on the sacrifice and suffering of the war. But the statues displayed around Whitehall – of Lloyd George, Churchill and Haig – show that the British establishment still has few regrets about that suffering. These WW1 leaders were responsible for sending a million men to their deaths in a war that killed 16 million, a war that led, inexorably, to fascism and the horrors of WW2. 

But Whitehall has an alternative history, a history of protests by suffragettes, soldiers and workers. Join us to explore that history. (Dressing up is optional. But it would be great if people came as anti-war suffragettes or ‘unknown soldiers’ – and the more Archduke Ferdinands and Duchess Sophies, the better!) 
*​*‘Remembering the Real WWI’ presents: Abel Gance’s anti-war film, *
_*J’ACCUSE*_
Friday 27 June, 7pm, Cock Tavern, Phoenix Rd. NW1 1HB, Euston. Free admission.





By 1918, after almost four years of war, European society was in a state of shock. French soldiers had mutinied and the Russian revolution had shown an alternative to capitalism and war. But there still seemed no end to the slaughter. 

In this atmosphere, Abel Gance resolved to make a film exposing ‘the horror of war’. The result was J’Accuse, a complex love story that culminates in stunning scenes of the war dead rising from their graves ‘to see if their sacrifice was worth anything at all.’ A veteran himself, Gance used French soldiers to play these ‘zombies’ – many of whom, in real life, went on to fight and die in the last battles of WW1. 

Gance was inspired by the idea that ‘if all the dead came back, the war would stop at once.’ A romantic delusion? Yes, certainly, but more radical and thought-provoking than the barrage of TV programmes presently commemorating the centenary of the conflict. 

It’s nothing like seeing the whole film but for the highlights of J’Accuse see: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


 (it’s better without the music!) 

* 
*The Imperial War Museum will be opening its new WW1 exhibition on Saturday 19 July. *

The museum was set up in 1917 by the very same generals and politicians who started the war. Join us on that day to commemorate the fact that it wasn’t victorious generals and politicians that ended the conflict, it was mutinying soldiers and striking workers – and they did so in revolutions that, almost, toppled the entire capitalist system. 

For more details see: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


http://therealww1.wordpress.com/


----------



## moochedit (Jun 28, 2014)

100 years ago today.


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2014)

> Did politicians keep the war going to prevent the Russian Revolution from spreading?



any sources?


----------



## treelover (Jun 28, 2014)

> *If we care about Britain's future, we must not forget our past*
> 100 years on from the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand we should remind ourselves of the struggles our ancestors endured to ensure we have a decent life
> 
> In June, only the rain and our hopeless optimism that summer awaits connect us to the Britain of my parents, who married 100 years ago on 29 June in a Barnsley registry office.
> ...



Harry's written a good piece


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 28, 2014)

On the anniversary of the Sarajevo assassination (and with apols if this has been posted already) -
Some good articles on the WW1 centenary and more current war-mongering from the Anarchist Federation.

http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist156.pdf


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 1, 2014)

Staff from Stowmarket QD store doing a selfie at todays WW1 Commemoration (or was it a celebration?) anyway this was a tad in bad taste as an obvious money spinning exercise?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> more current war-mongering from the Anarchist Federation.


----------



## sim667 (Jul 1, 2014)

I noticed one of the brighton green councillors has come under fire for describing parading soldiers as "hired killers"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I noticed one of the brighton green councillors has come under fire for describing parading soldiers as "hired killers"


must have been quite a surprise to hear the bullets humming.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I noticed one of the brighton green councillors has come under fire for describing parading soldiers as "hired killers"



  Good.
		 Disarmament and pacifism only work if everyone plays along. First job of a state is defending its citizens nice thoughts won't do that.

 This is basically the left wing equivalent of a tory councillor saying something racist.


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I noticed one of the brighton green councillors has come under fire for describing parading soldiers as "hired killers"



I sort of agree with that, albeit did they sign up due to poverty. If so then we have another issue that is far more complicated.


----------



## sim667 (Jul 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> I sort of agree with that, albeit did they sign up due to poverty. If so then we have another issue that is far more complicated.


 
To be fair, soldiers are trained to kill, and paid for it..... So by literal definition they are a hired killer regardless of whether they've joined due to poverty or not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2014)

economic conscription of the time was equally weighted with a social pressure- white feather sir?


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> To be fair, soldiers are trained to kill, and paid for it..... So by literal definition they are a hired killer regardless of whether they've joined due to poverty or not.



Are we talking WW1 or now? Maybe as DotCommunist touched on peer pressure was a factor?


----------



## sim667 (Jul 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Are we talking WW1 or now? Maybe as DotCommunist touched on peer pressure was a factor?


 
Nah, just generally.


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Nah, just generally.



Between 1916-1919, and 1939-1960, we had conscription. So you are correct for early WW1 but WW2 and early cold war was another can of worms?


----------



## sim667 (Jul 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Between 1916-1919, and 1939-1960, we had conscription. So you are correct for early WW1 but WW2 and early cold war was another can of worms?


 
I was thinking more modern day soldiers in relation to the green MP's tweet to be honest


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I was thinking more modern day soldiers in relation to the green MP's tweet to be honest



Yeh, it is a sick world with well informed so called educated intelligent youngsters signing up to kill Muslims, especially in the USA. The irony is that UK muslims are stamped on for doing the same thing by wearing different uniform and fighting for a a cause the UK Government sort of half supports. I find that whole thing very confusing and wonder what the real public perception was of say the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and the International Brigade. What control does big brother now have over peoples thinking/ideals? Not that I support any of these recent crusades/wars/inerventions.


----------



## sim667 (Jul 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Yeh, it is a sick world with well informed so called educated intelligent youngsters signing up to kill Muslims, especially in the USA. The irony is that UK muslims are stamped on for doing the same thing by wearing different uniform and fighting for a a cause the UK Government sort of half supports. I find that whole thing very confusing and wonder what the real public perception was of say the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and the International Brigade. What control does big brother now have over peoples thinking/ideals? Not that I support any of these recent crusades/wars/inerventions.



Unfortunately I think people are much more easily led by a mass media generated by their peers


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Yeh, it is a sick world with well informed so called educated intelligent youngsters signing up to kill Muslims, especially in the USA. The irony is that UK muslims are stamped on for doing the same thing by wearing different uniform and fighting for a a cause the UK Government sort of half supports. I find that whole thing very confusing and wonder what the real public perception was of say the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and the International Brigade. What control does big brother now have over peoples thinking/ideals? Not that I support any of these recent crusades/wars/inerventions.



while I don't think they are comparable, ISIS are not bound by any laws and deliberately murder, etc, one can note that Orwell wrote the majority of people were more interested in the Pools than Spain, though many working class communities did raise funds especially food, etc. The attitude of the govt was 'neutral' but people who had fought in Spain found themselves blacklisted and couldn't join the army, etc.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Good.
> First job of a state is defending its citizens nice thoughts won't do that.


Unless everyone volunteers to do it for free then a proportion of the people doing it are hired killers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2014)

black/white


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 2, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> I find that whole thing very confusing and wonder what the real public perception was of say the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and the International Brigade.



It's hard to say, but the media coverage was extremely negative.  The _Daily Mail _described International Brigaders as "the scum of England."  They were portrayed as desperate adventurers or Stalinist dupes.

Those who volunteered to fight for Franco (who far outnumbered the IB-ers in places like Ireland) were represented in a far more positive light, as motivated by religious faith.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> one can note that Orwell wrote the majority of people were more interested in the Pools than Spain, though many working class communities did raise funds especially food, etc.



But then again, Orwell was an Old Etonian, and tended to assume that everyone else was one too.

The truth is that British working-class communities were passionately involved in Spain.  And, lest we forget, they were involved on both sides.  In fact more working-class money probably went to the rebels than to the government.  There were villages in South Wales where the war was replayed for decades every time the pubs closed.


----------



## Batboy (Jul 3, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Yeh, it is a sick world with well informed so called educated intelligent youngsters signing up to kill Muslims, especially in the USA. The irony is that UK muslims are stamped on for doing the same thing by wearing different uniform and fighting for a a cause the UK Government sort of half supports. I find that whole thing very confusing and wonder what the real public perception was of say the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and the International Brigade. What control does big brother now have over peoples thinking/ideals? Not that I support any of these recent crusades/wars/inerventions.



Some of the public today understand that there is a different undercurrent between volunteers/mercenaries flocking to the Spanish civil war and Muslims here in the Uk volunteering to become jihadists in going to fight in Syria and or Iraq. I fully understand our governments 'hypocritical' stance on this, there is a climate for potential problems.

That undercurrent is the religious extremists who want to collapse not capitalism but contemporary Western culture as seen by the claims 'Baghdad today Rome tomorrow' cry. British Jihadists in Syria/Iraq will potentially be conditioned to return to Britain and cause trouble here.

The only parallels I can draw between the two events is 1) the conflict of opposing parties and ideologies and 2) Some young people joining in a misguided 'sense of adventure' way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2014)

*Should Britain Go To War with Germany?*
Date: Saturday 26th July, 1914
Time: 2:00 pm
Part of: Remembering the Real WWI
*Mass meeting, debate and resolutions*

With Ernest Bevin (National Organiser Dockers Union) and Ben Tillett (General Secretary National Transport Workers Federation)


On Sunday 2nd August 1914, tens of thousands of people demonstrated across the country against Britain's entry into what became the first World War. In Bristol an anti-war demonstration on the Downs was followed by a mass meeting of Dockers on the Grove to discuss the worrying situation on the Continent. In the preceding week, the dispute between Austria and Serbia had begun to escalate towards a major conflict between the imperial powers; France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain and the Ottoman Empire. Germany declared war on Russia and by Sunday 2nd August, Britain was on the brink of declaring war on Germany. At the height of the crisis in Bristol, Dockers Union members and their leaders met in public to debate whether to support the drive to war or not.

So come down to Narrow Quay (next to the Arnolfini) to hear the arguments, have your say and raise your hands, Brothers and Sisters, for or against.....

Remembering the Real World War 1


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 26, 2014)

By the end of the war, especially in the hours before the Armistice, ambitious commanders were eager to send their men into battle under pretty much any pretext whatsoever, with soldiers dying in large numbers. The slaughter continued right up until 11am on November 11, 1918 and there 10,000 or so killed between midnight on November 10 and the 11am ceasefire. Regarding insanely ambitious commanders, check out General Wright of the US Army's 89th Infantry Division and his military genius in deciding to attack Stenay:

http://robertwalshwriter.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/bullets-bathtubs-and-the-battle-of-stenay/


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 26, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> By the end of the war, especially in the hours before the Armistice, ambitious commanders were eager to send their men into battle under pretty much any pretext whatsoever, with soldiers dying in large numbers. The slaughter continued right up until 11am on November 11, 1918 and there 10,000 or so killed between midnight on November 10 and the 11am ceasefire. Regarding insanely ambitious commanders, check out General Wright of the US Army's 89th Infantry Division and his military genius in deciding to attack Stenay:
> 
> http://robertwalshwriter.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/bullets-bathtubs-and-the-battle-of-stenay/



   You could understand shelling till the last moment as loose ammo is an admin nightmare. Actually mounting an attack the changes nothing was sheer madness.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The truth is that British working-class communities were passionately involved in Spain.  And, lest we forget, they were involved on both sides.  In fact *more working-class money probably went to the rebels than to the government*.  There were villages in South Wales where the war was replayed for decades every time the pubs closed.



Source???


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 29, 2014)

Our unit is having a vigil to commemorate the start of the war believe it is country wide. The end I can understand remembering or even celebrating the start not so much.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 29, 2014)

*The Next War*
The long war had ended. 
Its miseries had grown faded. 
Deaf men became difficult to talk to, 
Heroes became bores. 
Those alchemists
Who had converted blood into gold
Had grown elderly. 
But they held a meeting, 
Saying, 
'We think perhaps we ought
To put up tombs
Or erect altars
To those brave lads
Who were so willingly burnt, 
Or blinded, 
Or maimed,
Who lost all likeness to a living thing, 
Or were blown to bleeding patches of flesh
For our sakes. 
It would look well.
Or we might even educate the children.' 
But the richest of these wizards
Coughed gently; 
And he said:   

'I have always been to the front
-In private enterprise-,
I yield in public spirit
To no man. 
I think yours is a very good idea
-A capital idea-
And not too costly . . . 
But it seems to me
That the cause for which we fought
Is again endangered. 
What more fitting memorial for the fallen
Than that their children
Should fall for the same cause?'

Rushing eagerly into the street, 
The kindly old gentlemen cried
To the young: 
'Will you sacrifice
Through your lethargy
What your fathers died to gain ? 
The world must be made safe for the young!'
And the children
Went. . . .


- Osbert Sitwell


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2014)

The Sitwells had a house near me(one of a few)


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2014)

I've just seen a moving Ch4 News package on the women who went out as nurses to the front, one of them said afterwards she would "never eat pork again"
You can guess the reason why, but if not, it was because the pigs 'cleaned up the battlefield"

war is never the answer.


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ow-can-you-help-to-identify-them-9638636.html

In the Indie, the lost portraits of the soldiers of the somme before they went over the top, (though some had already seen action) one hundred of them, can you help identify them?

many of them are from the DLI.


----------



## Poi E (Aug 3, 2014)

and we breed. Optimism or stupidity?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 3, 2014)

Poi E said:


> and we breed. Optimism or stupidity?


You know that tendancy for people to talk about what their parents did and swear blind that they'll never do anything so stupid or harmful themselves, only to find that they make different mistakes which are sometimes just as bad?  That.


----------



## JTG (Aug 3, 2014)

Or the same mistakes without recognising them as such


----------



## framed (Aug 4, 2014)

A brief note about the JCS #NeitherKingNorKaiser campaign. Any support from people here would be greatly appreciated.

We're trying to provide an alternative, pro-working class, anti-war message as an antidote to the type of state-sponsored 'celebrations' of the carnage of WW1 that are taking place today in Glasgow and Folkestone, with politicians of all shades and royalty at the forefront of the revisionism.

Your 'selfies' with the hashtag #NeitherKingNorKaiser represent a small but important statement that the revolutionary anti-war tradition lives on... We've already got support from "Casuals" author, blogger, community activist and general troublemaker, Phil Thornton, plus Mensi of the Angelic Upstarts, socialist activist and former SSP MSP Rosie Kane, folk singer David Rovics and Steve Hedley, candidate for general secretary of the RMT, but we'd like as many people as possible to join us in making this statement against capitalist wars.

Send your pics with the NKNK slogan to: neitherkingnorkaiser@gmail.com

More info about the campaign on the website:
Neither King Nor Kaiser


----------



## framed (Aug 4, 2014)

"Neither King Nor Kaiser" - song written and performed by David Rovics for the NKNK campaign...


----------



## chilango (Aug 4, 2014)

I would like to wear a white feather badge as a symbol of contempt for this celebration and as a commemoration of those with the sense to refuse to fight.

Any one know where I could get one or get one made?


----------



## toggle (Aug 4, 2014)

I'm hitting the rather irritating assumption that since Quakers were pacifists, all pacifists were Quakers. 

looking at the role of some of the Cornish pacifists, the Courtneys and Emily Hobhouse, who went to Germany to try to negotiate peace, and their connection with Stephen Hobhouse, who is as far as I can tell, the only one of that set who did convert. I've got copies of some of the letters from Stephen Hobhouse to the Courtneys somewhere round here. plus I've got the suggestion that Save the Children was founded out of the meetings held at the Courtney's London house.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 5, 2014)

Can anyone tell me the name of the guy who is singing here?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/redspotted/14836982164/

He's from Veterans For Peace but I didn't write down anyone's name, being useless and all. It's the last verse of the song he was singing in Parliament Square on Monday's anti-militarism WW1 meeting.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2014)

Dockside Debate 2nd August 1914: The Movie

This is the film of the debate mentioned above.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Dockside Debate 2nd August 1914: The Movie
> 
> This is the film of the debate mentioned above.



This is great mate. It's interesting that Tillett (like most trade unionists) became such a fervent supporter of the war. I remember reading he said "when men are facing death there is no class distinction."


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2014)

This was slipped into an article on Belgian refugees in the UK:


> The refugees were initially greeted with open arms. The government used their plight to encouraged anti-German sentiment and public support for the war.
> 
> "Contact with the Belgian refugees acted as a good reminder of why the First World War was a war worth fighting," says Sheffield.


That the government used this to whip up support does not imply the final sentence.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2014)

3 weeks of things in Bristol (more info on each at the link below) :

Remembering the Real WW1 – Autumn 2014

*Thu 23rd Oct	7:30 pm*	1914-1918: The War within the War	As we mark the centenary of the First World War, this epochal event is usually remembered as a bloody conflict between rival alliances of nations. But there was another struggle as well: between people who regarded the war as a noble and necessary crusade, and a brave minority who felt it was tragic madness and who refused to fight. Writer Adam Hochschild describes this battle in an illustrated talk, focusing on the country where that tension was sharpest, Great Britain.	Adam Hochschild

*Wed 29th Oct	7:30 pm*	World War One: Arming All Sides	After the First World War many believed the arms trade to be a primary cause of war. The unprecedented scale of death and destruction wrought by modern weaponry led a majority of people to support disarmament and international conciliation. The Arming All Sides project questions what role the arms trade played before, during and after the war, what opposition was mounted to the trade and how the war affected what people thought about making and selling armaments. Join us to explore how the arms trade worked at the time of WW1, and to find out about modern opportunities for action against the arms trade.

*Thu 30th Oct	8:00 pm*	Echoes of the ‘Great War’: Imperialism, displacement and migration . World War One is often characterised in the popular memory through the narrative of trench warfare on the Western Front. However, it was a global war fought by imperialist powers, ranging from Africa and the Middle East to the South Pacific. These conflicts, essentially struggles to create or maintain empires, shaped the modern world, not only for the warring powers but crucially for their colonial ‘subjects’. We live with the resonances of WW1 today, from Rwanda to Kurdistan and from Palestine to Iraq.

In this event Bristol's cultural links to WW1 are explored through the eyes of asylum seekers and refugees which defy the official narrative and glorification of ‘The Great War’. The impact of WW1 and its links to contemporary conflict are examined through the creation of digital stories which visibly express the real issues of displacement, identity and misery still felt today by Bristol's residents.

*Sun 2nd Nov	2:00 pm*	Hidden Histories of World War One	Bristol Radical History Group are hosting the international History From Below network conference which brings together historian-activists from all...

* Mon 3rd Nov to Wed 12th Nov *   -	Anti-war Art Exhibition	Throughout the Remembering the Real World War One events we will have a traveling exhibition which will feature anti-war art:

Presentations include:

Jean Jaurès (1914-2014) (Mario van Driessche, Ghent, Belgium)

Boden 1917: Why did you shoot your own officer? (Peter Box, Sweden)

‘Pistolerismo’: Barcelona during WW1 (Mariano Maturana, Barcelona, Spain)

The Christmas Truces 1914-15: Miracle, myth or mass mutiny? (Roger Ball, Bristol, UK)

Resistance to World War 1 in East London (David Rosenberg, London, UK)

No Glory in War Manchester - Alternative Ways of Marking the World War I Centenary (Ian Gwinn, Manchester, UK)

*Tue 4th Nov	7:30 pm  *  Women Resisting the Great War	Two talks about women resisting WWI. "The Friends of Alice Wheeldon" (accused of plotting to kill Lloyd George) and "Bristol women campaigning for peace in World War One".	Shelia Rowbotham, June Hannam

*Wed 5th Nov	2:00 pm  *  Opening the Archives: Resistance to World War One in Bristol	In a long tradition of Opening the Archives events the excellent Central Reference Library staff have done us proud in presenting a collection of...

*Thu 6th Nov	7:30 pm *   Deserters, Conchies and Reds: Bristolian opposition to the First World War	Two talks: "The Bristol Deserter – Alfred Jefferies – His War Story" (a Bristolian shot for desertion) and "Freedom of Soul" (Bristol union resistance to the war).   Colin Thomas, Geoff Woolfe

*Sat 8th Nov	2:00 pm*	Trade Unions and Resistance to the Great War	Two talks: "Class cohesion and spurious patriotism: trade union internationalism in the First World War" and "Men on one hand, Coal on the other: The Forest of Dean Miners and the First World War 1910 – 1920"   Ian Wright,Kevin Morgan

*Wed 12th Nov	8:00 pm*	The World’s War: Forgotten Soldiers of Empire  
Documentary, talk and discussion

David Olusoga's recent documentary The World's War challenged perceptions of WW1 with the stories of the millions of Indian, African and Asian troops who fought and died alongside white European troops on the western front and elsewhere. Using letters and diaries writer-director Dominic Rai brings to life the experiences of Indian soldiers in Flanders, popularised in the acclaimed novel Across the Black Waters by Mulk Raj Anand.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2014)

Watching the news reporting around the Tower poppy installation I can't help but notice how many folk, when interviewed, talk about the sacrifice *that we might live in freedom.
*
It appears that the notion of sacrifice in defeating fascism applies to the popular interpretation of WW1 as well?


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Watching the news reporting around the Tower poppy installation I can't help but notice how many folk, when interviewed, talk about the sacrifice *that we might live in freedom.
> *
> It appears that the notion of sacrifice in defeating fascism applies to the popular interpretation of WW1 as well?



 Well the German regime of WW1 was pretty crap and has been described as proto fascist if the uk had been defeated it would be pretty crap for the uk.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Well the German regime of WW1 was pretty crap and has been described as proto fascist if the uk had been defeated it would be pretty crap for the uk.



Yeah, we'd probably have had to endure a whole year of jingoistic military propaganda if we hadn't come out on top.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2015)

Nottingham Radical History Group:

103 Foresters
Mutinies and death sentences in the local regiment – 1914-18 - Pamphlet launch with talks, discussions.

Sat 7th February, 2015, 2-4pm

Since the start of 2014, we have been working on an extensive research project, looking into the cases of the 103 Sherwood Foresters who were sentenced to death or sentenced on mutiny charges during World War One.

We will launch the first two issues in a series of pamphlets, the first introducing and contextualising the project, the second looking into the case of a soldier sentenced to death on the Western Front on February 5th, 1915.

Room A18/19, Department of History
Lenton Grove (building number 5 on the University Park Campus map)
University of Nottingham
University Park Campus (West/Beeston entrance)
Beeston Lane
Nottingham
NG7 2RD

More info here


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Well the German regime of WW1 was pretty crap and has been described as proto fascist if the uk had been defeated it would be pretty crap for the uk.



Only by people who don't understand the meaning of 'fascist' and 'proto-'.

I think I've already said on this thread that all the belligerents in 1914 really were as bad as each other and it's important to keep that fact firmly at the centre of your attention.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 29, 2015)

though the Germans get obvious bonus points with going with their plan that apparently started as a thought exercise to show the whole knocking France out with a swift attack wouldn't work
 makes the dodgy dossier and 45 mins like look like a light hearted joke


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> The slaughter continued right up until 11am on November 11, 1918 and there 10,000 or so killed between midnight on November 10 and the 11am ceasefire.


could you expand on where thesr 10,000 deaths occurred? all in one place on one side or spread across the world through all combatants?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2015)

likesfish said:


> though the Germans get obvious bonus points with going with their plan that apparently started as a thought exercise to show the whole knocking France out with a swift attack wouldn't work
> makes the dodgy dossier and 45 mins like look like a light hearted joke


You know it's bad when even fish is appalled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Well the German regime of WW1 was pretty crap and has been described as proto fascist if the uk had been defeated it would be pretty crap for the uk.


who has so described it? and do you think they're right? pls give grounds for your opinion.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 29, 2015)

If I remember correctly, the 10,000 figure was quoted in a BBC documentary. I think it was this one:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> If I remember correctly, the 10,000 figure was quoted in a BBC documentary. I think it was this one:



ta


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Only by people who don't understand the meaning of 'fascist' and 'proto-'.



And were unacquainted with the fact that Germany was somewhere between a constitutional and an absolute monarchy, with _lande_ govts and the federal government generally prostrating themselves to the desires of the emperor.



> I think I've already said on this thread that all the belligerents in 1914 really were as bad as each other and it's important to keep that fact firmly at the centre of your attention.



Yup, they were all more or less motivated by imperialism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2015)

likesfish said:


> though the Germans get obvious bonus points with going with their plan that apparently started as a thought exercise to show the whole knocking France out with a swift attack wouldn't work
> makes the dodgy dossier and 45 mins like look like a light hearted joke



The von Schlieffen plan was also already a decade or so old when adopted in 1905 by Germany's High Command. Some of the premises behind it were 20 years out of date when it was deployed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nottingham Radical History Group:
> 
> 103 Foresters
> Mutinies and death sentences in the local regiment – 1914-18 - Pamphlet launch with talks, discussions.
> ...


Pamphlets #1 and #2 now available for free here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The von Schlieffen plan was also already a decade or so old when adopted in 1905 by Germany's High Command. Some of the premises behind it were 20 years out of date when it was deployed.


it was tho updated every year


----------



## likesfish (Feb 6, 2015)

Unfortunatly it was bollocks to start with so updating was just polishing a turd

The idea that russia would stay out was obviously false that meant the forces  to invade france had to be halved then smashing through belgium though  mlitarily brilliant would bring the british into the war so making the 42 day lighting victory impossible which was highly unlikely anyway given the state of roads and railways
The geramns could arrive on time or with enough force not both


----------



## likesfish (Feb 6, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Unfortunatly it was bollocks to start with so updating was just polishing a turd
> 
> The idea that russia would stay out was obviously false that meant the forces  to invade france had to be halved then smashing through belgium though  mlitarily brilliant would bring the british into the war so making the 42 day lighting victory impossible which was highly unlikely anyway given the state of roads and railways
> The germans could arrive on time or with enough force not both



Still gallopili was crap
As was the easter rising sure the german high sea fleet is going to come to your aid it just has to fight through the royal navy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it was tho updated every year



Which didn't mean the updating was meaningful. IIRC when deployed, they found the logistics resources available in Belgium for transit through were entirely different to what The Plan stated (IIRC the Habsburgs made a similar cock-up with regard to calculating the resources available to reinforce their eastern troop concentraations).


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Pamphlets #1 and #2 now available for free here.


Ta


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2015)

likesfish said:


> Still gallopili was crap
> As was the easter rising sure the german high sea fleet is going to come to your aid it just has to fight through the royal navy



The Easter Rising was never meant to succeed.  Connolly said as much on the way to the PO.  It was pure sacrificial martyrdom.

I'm with you on Gallipoli though.  Churchill should have been executed.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Saw this in the latest 'Verso' catalogue...comes out in the next few months I think. Could be interesting...anyone know of Newton?
> 
> http://www.versobooks.com/books/1591-the-darkest-days


In paperback now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2016)

Article/event/pamphlet:

Very good article in the utterly shitty Bristol Evening Post by good friend of BRHG Eugene Byrne (only problem is that it makes it sound like he was an MP when jailed):

The Bristol MP jailed for refusing to go to war



> This weekend a blue plaque will be unveiled to mark the life of one of Bristol's most extraordinary political figures of the 20th century. A serving city councillor, jailed after refusing on principle to take any part in the war effort during First World War, Walter Ayles went on to become an MP less than five years after his release from prison. This is the story of Bristol's most prominent conscientious objector, 100 years after he took his stand.



The event:
Unveiling of a Blue Plaque to Walter Ayles

Venue: 12 Station Road, Ashley Down, Bristol, BS7 9LA

A blue plaque for Walter Ayles will be unveiled on Sunday April 17th – the centenary of the date that Ayles was first arrested. Please put this date in your diary. The unveiling will take place from 3.30pm at the house where lived with his wife Bertha in Station Road, Ashley Down. Generous donations have enabled us to raise over £600 to pay for the plaque.  Come along and help us honour all those in Bristol who bravely opposed the war. Tell your friends.

Pamphlet:
Slaughter No Remedy The life and times of Walter Ayles, Bristol Conscientious Objector

Available at the unveiling and then from the site.


----------



## extra dry (Apr 16, 2016)

5 parts may have been put up earlier but I am in a rush to get home so no time to look sorry.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2016)

framed said:


> A brief note about the JCS #NeitherKingNorKaiser campaign. Any support from people here would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> We're trying to provide an alternative, pro-working class, anti-war message as an antidote to the type of state-sponsored 'celebrations' of the carnage of WW1 that are taking place today in Glasgow and Folkestone, with politicians of all shades and royalty at the forefront of the revisionism.
> 
> ...



MacLean, a puppet of the Russian barbarians, Connolly, an army deserter, Marxist executed for treason. Wonderful role models.


sim667 said:


> To be fair, soldiers are trained to kill, and paid for it..... So by literal definition they are a hired killer regardless of whether they've joined due to poverty or not.



You would be surprised, that even in time of war, the vast majority of soldiers kill no one. For every one at the sharp end, there are about four supporting him.

Cooks
Medics: Nurses, doctors, lab techs, dentists, blood technicians, combat medics, radiographers, physios et al.
Drivers
Signallers
Engineers, both Civil and Mechanical.
Clerks
Train drivers
Quartermaster staff
Pay staff
etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2016)

I wonder how many will line the streets when you die - and what their reasons for doing so may be.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Article/event/pamphlet:
> 
> Very good article in the utterly shitty Bristol Evening Post by good friend of BRHG Eugene Byrne (only problem is that it makes it sound like he was an MP when jailed):
> 
> ...



He got a lot of shit from other leaders in the Bristol labour movement at the time, including Frank Sheppard (who become Mayor of Bristol) and even some of Ayles' colleagues in the ILP.

Ayles also caused a bit of a commotion at the Labour party conference in 1916 (which was held in Bristol) when he started airing his views about the war.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Cooks
> Medics: Nurses, doctors, lab techs, dentists, blood technicians, combat medics, radiographers, physios et al.
> Drivers
> Signallers
> Engineers, both Civil and Mechanical.



And I understand equations, both simple and qudratical.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 18, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> And I understand equations, both simple and qudratical.



It generally comes as a bit of a surprise, how many people it takes to support the Teeth Arms.


----------



## CNT36 (Apr 27, 2016)

A bit of vaguely relevant local news.
Council blocks request for conscientious objector's tree in Penzance park


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> MacLean, a puppet of the Russian barbarians, Connolly, an army deserter, Marxist executed for treason. Wonderful role models.
> 
> 
> You would be surprised, that even in time of war, the vast majority of soldiers kill no one. For every one at the sharp end, there are about four supporting him.
> ...


not to mention military intelligence


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> MacLean, a puppet of the Russian barbarians, Connolly, an army deserter, Marxist executed for treason. Wonderful role models.


by contrast, you: a willing tool of the bourgeoisie.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> by contrast, you: a willing tool of the bourgeoisie.


Your usual bollocks. How surprising.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 10, 2017)

Long time bump here, but thought some of you may be interested in this.

This chap is posting diary entries from his grandfathers WW1 diary, on the day they were written, 100 years ago.

They're only short 1 liners. But still quite interesting.

1917 WW1 Diary of Gunner Lawrence Enderson Grimshaw (A/Cpl) 112573 Royal Garrison Artillery


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2017)

For those in bristol Colin Thomas is doing is talk on local oppostion to WW1 again this coming monday at UWE - Colin directed the fantastic The Dragon has Two Tongues btw so you know where he is coming from:

*SLAUGHTER NO REMEDY*_ For the present government the centenary of the First World War is seen as an opportunity to commemorate victorious patriotism. The reality is that a War that cost millions of lives encountered strong religious and political opposition. Over 6000 conscientious objectors were sent to prison, 40 of them from Bristol. Colin Thomas from the Bristol Radical History Group will talk about local opposition to the war at _7pm_ on Jan.16th in the Students Union on UWE's Frenchay campus, using extracts from programmes he has made. He is an award winning television director. _


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2019)

The First World War and It's Legacy: Commemoration, Conflict & Conscience Festival 

_Commemoration, Conflict & Conscience is a national festival which looks at hidden or lesser known stories of the First World War, legacies of the conflict, peace-building and alternatives to officially sponsored commemoration. Topics considered include: the Shot at Dawn campaign; conscientious objection to military service; strikes; mutinies, desertion and absenteeism; colonial experiences and impacts; women’s peace activism; treatment of veterans; a century of opposition to war; alienation from commemoration.

At Bristol’s M Shed museum, the weekend festival (27th-28th April) will bring together community groups, local historians, academics, campaigners, activists and performers from across the country. The festival includes exhibitions, performances, printing workshops, talks, films, song and music, community projects, a puppet walk and puppet show._

collected them all though.Annoyingly there is no single page with links to all the programs, that link above has 

I am particularly looking forward to Paul MacGann talking about the Monocled Mutineer (mentioned earlier in thread).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2019)

Let's give the above a bump as the day approacheth. A more pulled together program is now here.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 25, 2019)

Im gonna try and drop by on Sunday at least, looks great! Might be able to catch Paul Mcgann too actually.


----------

