Thanks Musket.
I think you are wrong about those letters.

DtG,

I'll let other people make up their own mind. Keith. Like before, I sure as hell am not going to go back through all that crap to see what went on a week ago.

Allow me.
Here is the post you referred to.
Each describes denials of my 3 points as "myths."


DtG, their(sic, sorry) are widely believed false versions of WW1 history that have myth status.

E.g. as Catriona Pennell wrote,
" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

e.g. Viewpoint: 10 big myths about World War One debunked. (Dan Snow)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

eg
Margaret Macmillan
Another myth: that the generals on both sides were heartless effete aristocrats who sipped champagne behind the lines while they pondered, unsuccessfully, the challenges of modern industrial war.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/first-world-war-centenary-understanding-not-political-point-scoring

eg
Max Boot
World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals — "lions led by donkeys" in the popular parlance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/books/review/catastrophe-1914-by-max-hastings.html?_r=0