3: Completely missed the bit that you obviously invented where Hastings offers the opinion that Britain could simply opt out of the war - Where did Hastings say that? Rhetorical question Grishka - He didn't say anything even remotely like that - So you revert to the tactic of attributing to him things that he never said (Hardly fair - or honest).

You also missed the point that I made. Hastings says (in one of the video clips linked on that page the other day) something to the effect "Now some argue that Britain should simply have stayed out and leave the continent to the Germans, but this would have been worse because ..." - the point is that he pretends this to be the only existing alternative, and in his arguments convey an impression as if British foreign politics had started in 1914.

In the current video clip, the crucial question "could Britain have averted the war" is addressed. Hastings says he discussed "the puzzle of 1914" with Sir Michael Howard to decide about that. The latter mentions conferences and secret diplomacy - all presumably based on correct facts, but with no chance a priori to answer the question as I understand it. See my earlier messages to this thread.

4: "The simple logic is "the enemy was evil, so we must have been right" ... and will be right in all future wars, since evil influential people will be found in all countries, if we decide to search for them."

Haven't a clue where this came from? In the context of what was stated in the link you provided the sentence quoted above is the most idiotic and simplistic thing I think I have ever read in connection with any historical event.

I was talking about the simplistic logic suggested by Hastings' rhetorics, particularly in the video clips. He is mainly concerned with evil and stubbornness of leaders in Germany and Austria, arguing that these countries were to blame for the war. The question I find more interesting is "Who could have averted the war/s with reasonable results, and is thus guilty of not having done it?".

By an eerie coincidence, I watched an interview with Benyamin Netanyahu the other day, where he justifies the Israeli settlements currently being enlarged. He said something like "We have destroyed our settlements in the Gaza Strip, and are still being attacked - so why bother?" If that were the ultimate art of peace making, nuclear wars would have exterminated mankind long ago.

So you revert to the tactic of attributing to him things that he never said (Hardly fair - or honest).

You misunderstood my remarks, as I said. I have no issue about individual journalists, and no "tactics", just my own points to make. Again I must emphasize that the dispute is not (primarily) about facts, but about ideology and rhetorics. Netanyahu was probably not lying about the rockets from the Gaza Strip, he was just indulging in war rhetorics where peace rhetorics would be in the strong interest of his country and all other countries.