I have never once invoked historical proof, but if there is a consensus/fashion among the historians, it must at least be a reasonable view to hold.

Keith, the impression you give is that you are supplying us with undeniable facts. Phrases like 'you lose' and 'all historians agree' imply that what you say must be true. I read it that way and, judging by the response, many others do. You are now saying "it must at least be a reasonable view to hold" which I agree with. It is a view, an opinion, not a fact. Just like the views and opinions of various historians. Please don't come back with your usual 'find where I have said it is a fact' ripost as I am not going to wade back through all that mire. It is just not worth it and I will happily accept that it was a wrong impression. I, for one, have not attacked you nor your three points. I have attacked the idea that because the historians you have read hold the same opinion, your opinion must be right. That is just nonsense. You now seem to be saying "I believe (opinion 1, 2 and 3) and most historians currently writing about WW1 seem to be of the same opinion, therefore it seems a reasonable view to hold." Is that right? If so, I am sure that no-one can disagree with that.