Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,940
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 660:
Line 660: + + + + +
→The invisible WWI
::These times are for honouring the fallen and thanking the returned - not for making deliberately provocative ideological points.
::These times are for honouring the fallen and thanking the returned - not for making deliberately provocative ideological points.
::Thanks for writing. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:04, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
::Thanks for writing. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:04, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
AlanE, I cited the historian Jacques Barzun about the role of Darwinism in creating a powderkeg in Europe relative to WWI. Barzun was a French born and noted American historian, who was awarded the American Presidential Medal of Freedom and who was knighted into the French Legion of Honor. I also cited Annika Mombauer, senior lecturer in history at the Open University in London and the author of numerous books and articles on World War I. I cited a quality article as well which documented its contentions. You can label my material deliberately provocative and ideological all you want, but I certainly did not cite ideologues to make my strongest points.
Instead, what you offered in return was name calling, feeble personal attacks and hysterics.
You might be reasonable in other matters, but when it comes to Darwinism, you have been very unreasonable and closed-minded which are not the characteristics of someone wanting to conduct valid historical investigations. One of the roles of an encyclopedia is to provide a resource on historical matters. And you have offered no reasonable historical information in opposition to the material I offered. You merely asserted it was idiotic to think that Darwinist ideology was a causal factor for WWI. Argument by mere assertion is illegitimate. And you compounded your illogical behavior by acting in a boorish manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 10 August 2014 (EDT)