"Both books were most certainly "rubbished" Shaw dear chap. Both were subject to highly critical peer review and not solely by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - for you to state as you have done that Taylor and Clark's books were not criticised demonstrates your ignorance at best and yet another of your lies at worst."

But, Teribus, the only context in this argument is that framed by Keith's reference to the Guardian piece. I have NOT stated that the books were not criticised, so now YOU'RE telling fibs! I have no doubt that others apart from Wheatcroft have criticised the damn things, but Keith has repeated said that THE GUARDIAN "rubbished" the books (which it didn't) - not anybody else!   

"It was for all of roughly ONE HOUR. Hoping to get away with what exactly Shaw - this being an article, a book and a subject that you say you have no interest in - it was however an opportunity that you seized on to "stick it to Keith A" didn't you, after all he had been trouncing you in discussions on the other WWI threads. Only trouble was Keith A acknowledged the mistake and immediately corrected it didn't he..."

Rubbish! It was the first mention of the Guardian piece IN THAT THREAD, he knew the piece very well having quoted the whole bloody thing elsewhere a week before AND mentioned it one more time, and he LIED about what Wheatcroft had said, bare-faced! He thought we wouldn't notice! It's whst Keith does all the time. He's done it to me only this past week! Get to know the man better, Teribus! Positively fraudulent, I'd say! 😂😂😂 And may I remind you for the umpteenth time that, had I not picked Keith up on the lie, it would have stood for ever more. Let's just let lies be perpetuated, eh, much more moral than "sticking it" to the liar!