"He is among their "Ten leading WW1 historians" and has written extensively for their history site."
You've relagated him - he was "the leading" at one time - that's fame for you - here today, gone tomorrow
"No. They all agree on these things anyway."
Wat the **** does that mean?
"If you were interested in the truth you would care about the findings of the historians.
If you were interested you would be able respond to the list of questions put to you - you haven't and you won't.
I am interested in what they say which is very different from your carefully selected and edited cut-'n-pastes.
"I am and I have."
Now you are lying
Try again - how was a war attrition which consisted of sending men to their deaths until one sidee gave up "well led" and not simple butchery?
How can sending so many millions of young man to their deaths for territorial gain be justified, especially when one of the protagonists has slaughtered ten million of their colonials?
Will dig up the rest of them when you have answered them - not your mythical "historians"
Won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll