I was keeping out of this but I feel I must try to clarify what my point is and what I believe is

Keith says on 3 points no one has been able to prove him wrong. The three points are, if I remember rightly, that the war was necessary, it had the support of the people and that our troops were well led. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Of those three points he has admitted that an historian who meets his criteria disagrees with the first one so we are down to two.

I have no idea if the second is true or not but as it is Keith making the claim, it is up to him to prove it, not for anyone to disprove. Considering the number of historians who have written on the subject I do not believe anyone on here has read them all so no one can say that all historians agree.

The last one is relative. There is no doubt that our troops were better led that the opposing forces. We won, suffered fewer casualties and were not beset by the mutinies that some suffered. However, better led does not, in my mind, equate to well led. In the case of the lesser of two evils it must be remembered that neither is actually good.

Others are claiming that the war was a disaster of the first order. Of that there is no doubt and the number of lives lost is testament to that. Whether it was necessary, supported or well led pales into insignificance when you weigh those points up against 17 million deaths and 20 million casualties.

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him. There is no doubt that everything he has read, apart from one thing, supports his points. Those points are minor and have no impact on anyone alive today. It is akin to arguing that the Nazis had smart uniforms. What we have to remember is not to glorify war and try to make sure a similar thing does not happen again.