"Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you."
You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up - it really doesn't get more complicated than that.
A lie is when someone claims that "none does" - when not only haven't they read all (a fairly daunting task for a non-historian anyway) but has openly lied over and over again about books he simply has not read - I repeat " your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much""
Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!
"Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views,"
no she doesn't - and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines
"Bad, poor incompetent British Generals"
Good butchers don't make good generals - but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are
KEITH'S APPROACH TO HISTORY
Jim Carroll