"Jim, it just makes you look silly saying I have not quoted historians with quotes that support my views.
I have done it so many times."
Where have yo - give your quotes or your links to having done so.
You have gone from critically supporting every single aspect of the war to, when your ridiculous sycophancy for the establishment line has been exposed for what it is, reducing your claim to three points ""Had to fight, Peoples' support, Well led."
You have moved from "all historians" to "all living historians" to "most historians" to.... I'm not sure how far back you've retreated t to the present time.
At first Hastings was your star witness.... The Spectator put paid to that with their condemnation of his contempt for the British military.
Now, you have resorted to supplying a list of names of historians who, you claim, support all your arguments.
You have carefully chosen bits and pieces from a tiny handful of historians (there are several hundred of them working on various aspects of 20th century war history), on a tiny handful of aspects of World War One (there are many aspects of the war under discussion - the causes, the run-up, the preparations for war, recruitment, conditions at home, the conduct of the war....) and used those handful of out-of-context quotes to claim that everything you have put up is supported by all historians - and you are arrogant and stupid enough to call me "silly".
I have no doubt that there are some historians who support the official establishment view of the war - which is the one you have put up - (don't you always?) - it would be ttupid to suggest otherwise - among your handful of historians are two historians who have been employed to teach history my the military establishment and one who is part of the Arms industry.
All the historians you have named have have stated that they are dedicated to changing the popular view of history, that (contrary to your argument) it is they who are swimming against the stream, not those of us who accept what we have been taught in school or arrived at through our personal experience or our reading - you dont read - you have not put up a single quote from your own knowledge or from your reading - not one - all have been dredged from the internet to prove a previously held view based on your right-wing patriotism (don't have any problems saying this Mike, if you are looking in - Keith has chosen to reject contrary evidence because it comes from "Lefties" as if we are living in his extremist dream State where the left have no right to an opinion).
You have bent history to fit your blimpish jingoism.
If your ghost army of historians support your case, show us where they do with quotes, with links to quotes, with actual evidence and not just a list of meaningless names.
You chose to avoid what you can't hand;le- your claim of lying, attention seeking soldiers, the implications of your claim that Lloyd George blamed Kitchener to hide his own cock ups, the points raised by Paxman programmes on recruitment, unpreparedness, indifference to the war back home, the suppression of war critics like Sassoon, profiteering......... right through to the obscenity of £20m spent on glass poppies and arms fairs to glorify what has been long recognised as beginning of the death of the British Empire
You want to show us we are wrong and prove you "have won" (about 25 times now - an obsession in anybody's book), show us which historians have overwhelmingly supported your three points, what they have said and how they have shown the world they are wrong
Jim Carroll