"You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Now you are lying again - you have never asked for any such thing - never!!
Proof of your lying
01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM
"Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?"
Couldn't get clearer than that - please stop this dishonesty
"If you think there is a book I should read, name it."
You claim to have read may books and have written off all those who don't support you.
Read what McMallan really says in 'The War that Ended Peace' it dosn't bear comparison with your claims
Read her 'The Misuse of History' which deals specifically with what you are doing here.
Read The Sleepwalkers - which deals with the avoidably of war
"Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!"
Nothing dishonest Keith - Sheffield says what he says about Haig - no editing - you claim he supports Haig - he qualifies his support, which you have deliberately avoided doing - that is dishonesty - it is what you have done with every single quote you have put up - without exception.
Explain the contrdictions in your claims and Sheffield's own statement
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category."
That is not the unqualified support you have claimed.
Sheffield and McMillan state that the army did not reach fighting fitness until 1918 - virtually the end of the war - so they fought the rest of it unfit for purpose, which leaves the question, was the war worth the sacrifice of so many lives? another question you refuse to respond to   
Don't you ever accuse me or anybody here of dishonesty again after the way you pair have behaved and are continuing to behave here - you have monopolised the practice.
Another simply put question AGAIN
How dare you disqualify all but modern historian when no individual working in the field has ever done so EVER? If that is not the case - show us who has
By the way - yet another lie - you are now claiming that you haven't answered my questions because you don't understand them (having first claimed you had answered them and then told us that you won't answer questions from agenda-driven igoramouses who are incapable of thought) - I make tthat three contradictory answers to the same question - don't suppose you ahve an explanation other than "I told lies" which is the only one I can think of.
Jim Carroll