"I have only cited professional historians."
You might do a little better if you actually read a couple of them instead of scrambling round the web and selecting the first thing that comes to hand to back up your jingoistic claims - and rejecting all the information that doesn't.
Your main informant, Max Hastings, is not a qualified historian, he is a journalist with an interest in World War One - his official entry in the Cambridge Biographical dictionary gives him as a "British writer, journalist and broadcaster" - no mention of him being a "historian".
If he is a "historian" he is a self-appointed one with no academic qualifications whatever.
His main claim to being a "historian" is by being a fellow of the Royal Historical Society - an organisation described thus:
"The Royal Historical Society (RHS), founded in 1868, is a United Kingdom society existing to promote and defend the scholarly study of the past. The Society is based at University College London. One strand of the Society's roots can be traced back to the 1838 foundation of the Camden Society, which merged with the Royal Historical Society in 1896."
There is no record of his having any academic historical qualifications whatever.
On the basis on the words of a 'historical journalist' writing nearly a century after the event you have attempted to turn history on its head.
You described the findings of B.H. Liddell Hartas as "revisionist" - Hart's track record reads thus:

"On the outbreak of World War I in 1914 Liddell Hart volunteered to become an officer in the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. He fought on the Western Front. Liddell Hart's front line experience was relatively brief, confined to two short spells in the autumn and winter of 1915, being sent home from the front after suffering concussive injuries from a shell burst. He was promoted to the rank of captain. He returned to the front for a third time in 1916, in time to participate in the Battle of the Somme. He was hit three times without serious injury before being badly gassed and sent out of the line on July 18, 1916.[4] His battalion was nearly wiped out on the first day of the offensive, a part of the 60,000 casualties suffered in the heaviest single day's loss in British history. The experiences he suffered on the Western Front profoundly affected him for the rest of his life.[5] Transferred to be Adjutant to Volunteer units in Stoud and Cambridge, he spent a great deal of time training new units.[6] During this time he wrote a several booklets on infantry drill and training, which came to the attention of General Sir Ivor Maxse. After the war he transferred to the Army Educational Corps and was given the opportunity to prepare a new edition of the Infantry Training Manual. In this manual Liddell Hart strove to instill the lessons of 1918, and carried on a correspondence with Maxse, a commanding officer during the Battle of Hamel and the Battle of Amiens.[7] These battles provided a practical demonstration of tactics for attacking an entrenched enemy."

You have rejected the opinions of soldiers who fought in WW1 (described as "liars and romantics" by you) - of other long-term and fully qualified historians - on the word of a Daily Mail columnist (his current main occupation).
Can you please go and read something for yourself and not continually hide behind a few cut-'n-pastes taken from a few much condensed articles posted on the net - Hastings is a self-appointed historical journalist - he is not a Historian - if anything, his claim to being a "historian" is an honourary one - sort of like the Beatles being given honourary fellowships at Oxford.
Even the review of his book on World War One by a fully qualified historian - in a fully recognised history publication - points out that, of the three books on the subject, Clifford's was "the weakest on the causes of World War One" - his interest in the subject centres around Military Tactics - (the boom - boom, bang-bang side of military journalism much beloved by all journalists - especially the tabloid ones like Clifford).
Clifford is not a historian, he is a journalist with an interest in military strategy and tactics.
Whether his interest qualifies him to challenge the findings of real historians remains to be seen - we will never know by scooping up convenient, out-of-context cut-'n-pastes to defend a somewhat quaintly out-of-date analysis of WW1.
ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE GO AND READ UP ON THE SUBJECTS YOU CHOOSE TO DOMINATE WITH YOUR IGNORANCE - THIS IS THE UMPTEENTH ONE YOU WILL HAVE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO YET AGAIN   
Your nonsense stopped being taught when the sun set on the British Empire.
Even the official propaganda of the time made it quite clear why World War One was fought "For King and Country" - the official slogan.
There was never a question of Britain being involved for any other reason than self-interested motives of Empire - certainly not to come to the assistance of a nation led by genocidal mass murderers - that's what "Gallant Little Belgium" was - and that's official - not a matter of opinion!!
Jim Carroll