Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible - perhaps Harry can enlighten us. I believe that what Keith A has pointed out, quite a number of times, is the rather reasonable and logical comment that "historians" who specialise in the study of the period covering the First World War, who have written on the subject post 1970 have far more information, from far more sources, than their predecessors ever had. Which means that the work that they have produced is better informed and provides for far better understanding of the period and the events of the times. The main objectors to the conclusions drawn by the "historians" mentioned by both Keith A and myself cling with the tenacity of limpets to conclusions, myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of "historians" whose conclusions have been discredited in the light of newer, and more complete information. Keith A's main critics on this forum prefer to quote as "gospel" the work of playwrights with a particular axe to grind that had nothing whatsoever to do with WWI and the output of television drama and comedy scriptwriters.

And as those objectors admit that they have little or no knowledge of the "Great War" I can hardly see how those people can possibly have formed any sort of different opinion to be scoffed at if they have not studied what all of that new information has turned up. My guess is that out of pure idleness they have simply adopted their automatic default position without making the slightest effort to actually inform themselves.