!"I have read both. You clearly have not.
Not a chance - you don't 'arf tell 'em
You would know of her criticism of the way the war was conducted otherwise.
I made a point to following up some of the things we have argued in McMillan's book via her unsubstantial index - your claims are either mistaken or totally dishonest - or both.
The same with Hastings - he said what the review said he said - and what he agreed with in his response to the "generous" review.
You have never - never at any time - in any of our arguments have given anything other than selective cut-'n-pastes
In the past you have accused people of "putting too much information up in order to confuse the issue" - even the list of historians studying the war was "too long"
I don't believe you read anything substantial - I'm not sure you are capable of doing so.
You certainly have't read Deuscher and Conquest as you claim to have otherwise you could easily have responded to my question on the contradiction between the two accounts of the Ukraine famine - and you will not do so now - it is necessary to have read the whole book in order to be able to.
You can not comment on works of history with out-of-context quotes without reading the books - it is crass agenda-driving to attempt to do so.
This is the umpteenth time you "real historians" have blown up in your face in a spectacular fashion - Kineally (and all the other "revisionist" historians you used to back your Famine claims without even understanding the word "revisionism", Hastings, McMillan - and the rest.
When will you ever learn - you fool no-one with your dishonesty?
Neither you and your bullying blustering mate have ever responded to the real points of this atrocious war - instead, you have hidden by unread historians and, when soldiers actual words have been put to you, you called them liars, which sums up the veracity of your arguments and the respect for those who fought and died
You are a disgrace
Jim Carroll