More quibbling about the "coffin ships" does not later by one corpse the number of people who died on them - it just shuffles around them - as you apologists do.
Cecil Woodham Smith's The Great Hunger certainly is not "definitive" - it is merely an excellent introduction to the subject.
Keith dismissed it as "revisionist" whatever his mind has interpreted the term.
The 150th anniversary of the Famine produced a whole batch of fresh studies on the subject - many of them examining the political motivation and the implications of appointing a religious fanatic like Trevelyan to be put in charge of distributing food to a population he despised - his actions show that.
If that were not enough, I stumbled across the debate between Kennedy and Coogan on 'The Famine Plot' - fascinating listening.
Kennedy describes Trevelyan as "a dedicated workaholic" struggling to feed the starving people
Kennedy, whatever his qualifications, turns out to be no more than a Famine apologist - like you pair of clowns.
He in no way attempts to explain Trevelyan's hatred of the Irish, nor why such a man should have been appointed - he certainly never refers to the fact that Trevelyan decided to take a long holiday in the middle of the Famine - leaving the Irish to continue to starve.
One thing I had missed when I read Coogan's book, which I revisited last night, was an appendix containing a long letter sent anonymously by Trevelyan (under the pseudonym Philalethes) to The Morning Chronicle (Oct. 11th 1843), expressing his hatred of the Irish as lazy malcontents who didn't appreciate the benefits of the British Empire - this is the man who was appointed to feed the people he hated.
I have never come across Trevelyan's letter before and can find no reference to it elsewhere - a historical cover-up?   
Comparing other famines with the Irish one is more or less equivalent to saying human rights atrocities are acceptable because everybody does them - as you both have done
You have described The Famine as "unprecedented" - it was.
The way it was handled was Genocidal - whether it was deliberately so is what should be debated.
Your advocating for Hastings doesn't make a happorth of difference - not to me anyway.
I haven't read his book and haven't commented on what he wrote - I pointed out that his latest work was cited as being "weak on the causes of WW1 - no more.
My reason for raising his name was to point out the hypocrisy of Keith (who still hasn't read a book as as far as I know) demanding "evidence from real historians" while basing his entire arguments (on WW1) on the writings of a tabloid journalist, with no historical qualifications, permanently employed a notoriously jingoistic producer of rightist bum-fodder - how crassly dishonest can you get.
You want to make a point about the Famine - do so.
Don't compare it to other famines - don't waffle about who invented coffin ships - come out from behind the reputations of 'prominent historians and address the facts, which are simply based on the Government decision to abandon all attempts at relief and opt for "inevitable" mass deaths and/or enforced emigration - that is what lies at the heart of over a million deaths and a permanent culture of Irish emigration ever since.
Stop waffling and blustering - stick to the point boy!
Yours
Christmas
Jim Carroll