Not surprisingly Michael demonstrates the methods of newspapers by displaying their own tactics.

I doubt I have built my point on such a flimsy basis but Michael conveniently ingored 99% of what I have said on the matter in order to concentrate on the point that Keith's source writes with the political slant that he is paid to


So. .. just for Michael, as I suspect Keith will as ever ignore anything I write as disrespectful of his rambling nonsense,

Hastings writes accounts that are based on official records of the govenment of the day combined with selected views of those involved that happen to agree with it. I have read quite a lot of both Hastings and Sheffield and prior to this thread existing found myself drawn to the camp of those who were appalled by their airbrushing of callous operations combined with jingoistic propaganda, including censorship of the newspapers to hide the reality. Hence Keith's claim of objective reasoning by the soldiers contrasts with their experiences.

The inconvenient fact that even revisionists have to deal with is that come WW2, the generals were the junior officers of the first campaign and, in the words of A J P Taylor "learned the lessons from the first campaign and put a much higher value on the lives of those they asked to fight. "

Hence the revisionist shit Keith is so wedded to runs the risk of having society eventually forget why we remember. Why we must see war as the failure of peace.

Lest we forget.






If you claim you have no dog in this race, I suggest you leave your dog at home when watching racing as it tends to slip its lead and chase the rabbit with the pack. As a UK citizen who likes to think people are interested in his views, I think you do have a dog here. "Responsibility" running in the 19.14 at 18/1 odds.