Rational discourse?

This coming from someone who thinks Teribus is right when he says only recently written historical accounts are historical and anything written before is revisionist. He can't even grasp the meaning of words in plain English, and that's before you analyse the absurd fantasy he promotes.

Presumably you also defend Keith's provisos, added to whenever his silly make believe is found out. Let's see now.. Historians have to be living as of today's date, published somewhere or other in the last twenty years, their books available in Hertford library, oh, they have to be eminent too. Last and most certainly least, they have to support the political stance dreamed up by Michael Gove who, when education secretary decreed that WW1 history should be about success, victory and what a smashing bunch of people the military top brass are and were.

Everybody on here questioning that abomination merely remind us that the graves are the elephant in the room. That the stratified society 100 years ago had a very different take on soldier welfare and that duty and jingoism were the driving factors, not agreeing with the factors that made up the diplomatic mess Europe found itself in.