"That is one more historian to add to my list."

More unmitigated BS from him who reads only the first couple of sentences (by his own admission).

"All this is fair enough, if hardly original. (The late John Terraine was making the same point back in the 1960s.) But in Hart's worm's-eye view there is a danger that the real grand strategic significance of the year is lost. Broadly, the troops that Ludendorff rushed to the Western Front for his offensives after Russia's collapse could not compensate for the great inexhaustible drafts of fresh blood pouring across the Atlantic into France, as the United States rode to the rescue of the exhausted Anglo-French. The psychological impact of America's arrival in the war on allies and enemies alike can hardly be over-emphasized.
Nevertheless Hart is a clear, down-to-mud writer who refuses – as some of his revisionist colleagues do not – to pretend that war is anything other than unmitigated Hell. He has chosen his sources well – from both sides of the lines – and his book is a magnificent tribute above all to 'the man who won the war': the British Tommy."

Reading a little more (I know it's difficult for you, but worth the effort), he is hardly in the Max ("Blimp") Hastings, or the K.a of H. school of revisionist history.

In fact the bottom line is that he is much closer to Owen and Sassoon than to 'Orrible 'Astings, who believes it right to execute shell shocked servicemen.

If "Maximum Penalty" had his way, half our Falklands and Gulf veterans would be dead.