Problem is Jim, one point in his argument's favour and he thinks all arguments against aren't valid. He is incapable of noting the truth in some of what he says, choosing to say that if part is true, the rest must be too and anyone saying otherwise is a disgrace etc.

Rather pathetic really.

(Even when a "real" military historian is cited by me, he dismisses him as "political." It'd be funny enough, but A J P Taylor for Clapton's sake......)