The Austrian Hungarian Empire must be quaking in its jack boots..

The question from Donuel above, whilst withering and intended to be sarcastic, accidentally makes an interesting point.

There are some on here, (let's call them Fred and Hubert to save embarrassment for Keith and Teribus, oh..) who confuse the role of historian with the role of commentator. You do not need to be a historian to conclude from the research of historians.

To be impressed with their evidence is one thing, but to be so impressed as to blindly follow their conclusions without balancing it against what we also know from other sources merely shows that this discussion is on two levels of intelligence. In order to sell your books or make your academic mark, you need to come off the fence, which is what these people are doing. In many cases, their personal take does not flow from the evidence as much as flowing from publisher requirements or promises from the establishment they increasingly serve.

No point in discussing it when the opinions of a few historians are carved in stone by those incapable of intellectual discourse.