I'm not in on this strange Wheatcroft argument, but it strikes me odd that someone like Keith, who stridently demands that we present evidence from "real historians' who sell their books in "real bookshops" should cite the opinion only of a journalist with no historical qualifications whatever on the work of one of Britain's recognised great historians whose historical importance has been compared to that of "Gibbon and MacCauley"
Funny what a little bit of jingoism does to some people
Jim Carroll