British opinion was mixed. Education was not as good as it was up till recently and people borrowed their views from what they read far more readily than now.

That said, being encouraged to fight and doing so willingly is very different to understanding the reasoning behind it. Imperial ambition and carving up territory meant little to a postman from Barnsley, but being told a German will rape his sister possibly had an effect.

You can only look at now with people thinking further bombing of Syria will make the nasty people go away. That's a popular opinion, shared by readers of most newspapers and shallow politicians, so anyone looking at it in a hundred years might mistake it for reasoned assessment by the masses.

By the way, nobody on here has not accepted the findings of a single historian. Perhaps Keith might find a friend to explain the difference between evidence and judgement? Overview and assessment? Fact and fiction? Hypothesis and conclusion?

Although this discussion is stupid anyway. Most of the historians Keith refers to give a broader assessment than his cherry picking anyway and only a couple venture into personal opinion, and then contradicting each other.

Mind you, dismissing Ferguson because of his political views whilst worshipping Hastings gave me a chuckle.