The latest example of Jom-inese:

"A historian is ot a god he/she provides to things - researched facts and opinions.
If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them (stupidly arrogant)
I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty.
The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up.
Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter.
No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today.
By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way. "

1: "A historian is not a god he/she provides two things - researched facts and opinions."

Well not exactly Jom, they put in the time study the available evidence, they research and examine it to verify it and then present their work and draw their conclusions based upon the verified facts. The better the information, the wider the research the more pertinent the conclusions - so it is not just opinion. As for opinions there are some of your pals on this forum who proudly boast that their opinions are held on the basis of information that they themselves know to be wrong.

2: "If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them."

Now what facts have either Keith A or myself challenged Jom? You on the other hand have challenged plenty, not surprising really as for you WWI seems to have gone into a perpetual state of hibernation in 1915.

3: "I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty."

Great pity then that you do no research - up above you incorrectly stated that one of the two things provided by historians are opinions, you now seem to state that they don't or shouldn't - which one is it - as stated above historians in their own works tend to give their conclusions along with justification for drawing those conclusions - very different to a mere opinion.

4: "The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up.
Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter."

Yes it was a war of attrition, it became such a war because there was no other alternative available - As far as the "entente" powers were concerned this was not a matter of choice it was forced upon them as a reality by the Germans under Falkenhayn in 1916.

With an unbroken line of trenches stretching from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea coast of Belgium any attack was restricted to a frontal assault. A frontal assault Jom can only be made by throwing young men at one another until one side or the other prevails, it has been that way since the dawn of time. The Commander who can do that and devise means of doing that while keeping his casualties to a minimum is leading his men well. By this metric alone on the western front of the combatant powers of 1914, the British were undoubtedly the best led.

The period we are discussing Jom is 1914 to 1918 and those who were directing the war effort and those who were commanding armies were faced with dealing with the realities of war in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. That being the case whatever standards you think exist in 2015 are totally irrelevant in this discussion. To introduce modern day thinking and behaviour and apply it to events in history is idiotic.

5: "No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today."

Are you sure about that Jom?? If things really go pear-shaped in Eastern Ukraine you will find the occasions when frontal assaults will have to be made by one side or the other. Rather mystified about the next bit - claiming WHAT is well led? If you are looking at something that happened at the beginning of the twentieth century then apply the morals and the accepted mores of the beginning of the twentieth century (Sometime you seem incapable of doing Jom)

6: "By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way."

Irrelevant today's standards did not apply in the period 1914 to 1918 - get your head round that and live with it- utterly ludicrous of you to suggest that they could or should.

7: "Even by yesterday's standards, there were horrific undeniable cock ups which indicate it was poorly led"

Completely agree, there were horrific undeniable cock-ups, fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them.

8: "The same applies to the justification of the war.
The war was about controlling and retaining colonies - it was an Imperial war in name and nature - and it was WRONG - then and now and it is not the job of any historian to claim otherwise."

What complete and utter tosh. Yes it was a war of empires:

- The Germans wanted to acquire one both in Europe and overseas by aggression and force of arms
- The Austro-Hungarians wanted to hold onto theirs and destroy Serbia
- The Russians wanted to save Serbia and destabilise and further weaken the Austro-Hungarian Empire
- The British wanted to safeguard their empire
- The French wanted to safeguard theirs

All perfectly good examples of those nations looking after their own interests as they saw them back in 1914 - the fact that YOU think imperial interests are wrong does not make that the case back in 1914. And it is precisely the job of a historian to lay out and explain where each of the combatants were coming from and what their motivations were.

Jom - if you were interested in history, you would read it.