Thats just a review, no description of methodology. "Stevenson argues persuasively" - persuasively to whom. How does he argue, what is his methodology. The last paragraph is revealing, British soldiers were fighting for "king and country". The very fact that they should mention this in one sentence suggests that they were still in thrall to the mindset of subservience to their "betters". A French soldier fought because "he did not want to become a Boche". Suggests that the propoganda efforts of the French elite to portray the Germans as subhuman had been effective. Reading that paragraph I am even more disgusted by our rulers of the time. They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos. Stevenson isn't persuasive to me. And if he persuades me of anything it is that the lying, cheating, venal swine who ran our country at the time would stop at nothing, including sacrificing the lives of millions of their countrymen, in pursuit of their nefarious ends. The only people who had the nous to know what to do about this were in St, Petersburg.