"Obviously not a historian."
Why - because he wasn't saying the things you wanted him to say presumably?
You continue to adopt the tactic of voiding what is being said (all a matter of recorded history - well covered in the second Paxman programme) and questioning the qualifications of the writer.
Why do continue to try to give the impression of actually read anything when you are noted for scrabbling round the net looking for bits to back your ignorance?
And you continue to inore the statement of the sreturning soldier - still liars eh?
Clown
Jim Carroll