No they don't- not entirely anyway
Margaret McMillan contradicts you on several points - you have been given that information and have chosen to ignore it, as is your wont - will check the others later.
That aside, not counting Max Hastings, who we have proved and you have already concede is not a historian , but a tabloid journalist - I make that 11 historians - out of how many, do you reckon (it is you who has persistently rejected evidence from 'non historians).
Where is there any reference to "all historians agreeing with you" as you persistently claim?
You have been given a list of historians who have been involved in WW1 study, and what aspect they are studying - you won't respond to that list because you claim it to be unreadable.
Where is there any reference to a sea change in the understanding and teaching of history on the scale you are suggesting.
Where is there any reference to such an important debate taking place.
Where is there one shred of evidence that, apart from the tiny handful you have carefully selected (out of context), there are any historians re-examining WW1 history?
WHERE IS THERE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT, APART FROM YOUR TINY, CAREFULLY SELECTED LIST - ANYBODY IS CONTEMPLATING SUCH AN IMPORTANT CHANGE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY - IN OTHER WORDS - HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ALL HISTORIANS AGREE WITH YOUR OPINIONS - A VISITATION MAYBE - OR MAYBE THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OF THOSE FACT YOU ARE MAKING UP? - (links on a plain postcard please)?
Jim Carroll