"Hastings does not support you.
NO HISTORIAN DOES!"
You haven';t read Hastings, nor from the quality and content of your postings, any other historian, so you would be the last to know what they support.
"You are arguing against the historians about history, and making yourself ridiculous.
You have been given accounts of what the historians you have trawled up - you choose to ignore them
Tou don't read historians - you were actually forced to admit that on Ireland and have half admitted it here - matter of time before you tell us you are not interested as you have done before.
Ghost historians you haven't read don't hack it - your attitude to WW1 is si#ted squarely in the first half of the 20th century.You once calaimed that WW1 was ot an Imperial war (then inadvertently put up a cut-'n- paste stating it was - noticeably, you have steered clear of the causes of the war.
You say irt was well led, yet when it is pointed out that "good leadership" amounted to nothing more than sending as many young men as possible to their deaths, again, you remain silent.
You have been given what Hastings said about the leadership, particularly in reference to ield Marshall French, you remain silent.
You are asked to justify your claims on the review of Hastings' book - you remain silent.
Silence seems to be your main ploy in these arguments - had you adopted the tactic earlier, you might not be held in the contempt you now are.
Jim Carroll