Guest,
Some people have said that a historian agrees with them even when they finally admit they haven't even READ that historian until a year AFTER they claimed his agreement.

I had read that historian, and all the others I have used.
I had read numerous essays and article which I quoted agreeing my views.
I gave the quotes with links to their source so they could be seen in their original intended context.

I have never even referred to what is in Hastings' book until Jim started quoting his review.


All histories of the last twenty years any of us have been able to quote confirm my three points.
On what basis do you reject them all Guest?
If you believe you know more than all of them, your conceit and stupidity are truly epic!