"Well not exactly"
Yes exactly - he or she will take the facts available and apply their own moral judgements to them - extremist right wingers
such as you and Keith will see nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives for territory, wealth and political power whereas a humanitarian or left wing historian will make different moral judgements.
You know this because both of you have dismissed arguments as being "leftie" as if holding left wing views was illegal or immoral enough not to be considered.
" Yes it was a war of empires"
Simple as that - defence of one of those imperial powers that massacred 10 million of its colonials and making that power a poly to persuade young men to join up cannot be regarded as "just" by any standards - today's or yesterdays.
What was happening in the Belgian Congo was well known through Mark Twain's book and was ignored by the "civilised" world - massacres on that scale are indefensible.
The "no alternative" bit came the action of politicians and who made the war a fait accompli
Actually there was an alternative - that which the Russian people took and the 1916 revolutionaries in Ireland aimed for and partially achieved - for the people who were forced to do the fighting to refuse to do so - that's what the Communist International called for when they declared the war an Imperial one.
The fact that all this was based on the situation of the time is exactly the point - we are discussing the rights and wrongs of the war today - not in the second decade of the twentieth century.
You are saying TODAY that the war was well led and justified - I am saying that it was not.
If you7 are going to defend the atrocities of the past on the basis that it was in the past , you may as well justify the horrors of the Inquisition or the persecution that took place during The Reformation.   
We judge these things by today's standards - at least us non-jingoists do.
"fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them."
Oh - that's all right then - after all, they were only young British lives that were being sacrificed!!!
Fist day of the Somme
"By the end of the day, the British had suffered 60,000 casualties, of whom 20,000 were dead: their largest single loss. Sixty per cent of all officers involved on the first day were killed".
I can't be arsed to look up how many died at Loos, or Gallipoli, or through wrong ammo being sent, or all the other cock-ups that took place.
As long as the Germans sacrificed more young men out cock-ups don't count - is that what you're saying?
"Not true. Name one! Quote one!"
Have done so and am tired of doing so.
Your last outburst was when I quoted a summary of Hastings' actual attitude - you threw a wobbler and still haven't had the grace to acknowledge it.
I really am not interested in discussing history with someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject nor the interest to acquire some.
You want to discuss thew war in the terms I set out, feel free - you want to discuss historians you haven't read - go and find smeone who wants to talk to a disinterested no-nothing.
At last your belligerent mate has made some roads into discussing his somewhat quaintly outdated views - now all he has to do is stop strutting around like a peacock with piles and we might have a reasonable discussion on our hands - otherwise he can join you and sling his hook - I left bullies behind at Birchfield Road infant school way- way back.
Jim Carroll