"In written history, as on the internet, personal experiences allow a reality check."

Depends on the person and depends on the experience.
Waterloo Campaign: Three people Wellington, Captain Kincaid of the 95th Rifles and Rifleman Costello of the 95th Rifles all were there, their experiences were very different who was in the best position to write about what actually happened?

Christmas:

"And I make no claim on how many people believe what as you pair do"

I haven't got a clue as to how many people think as I do - I am not in the least bit interested - but one thing I am pretty certain about is that the general consensus among historians is that Britain's First World War Generals were nowhere near as as bad as some, such as yourself, are prepared to paint them. Certainly the results they got meant that the massive increase in size of the British Army between 1914 and 1918 was handled extremely well, the casualty figures were lower than any of the other combatant powers, the Army suffered no total breakdown in terms of moral or discipline and by the summer of 1917 it along with the Commonwealth forces fighting alongside it was the only Allied Army in France prepared to undertake offensive operations. Those by the way Christmas are all extremely well documented facts and serve as indicators of how well the British and Commonwealth Armies were led - refute them if you wish, but I do not think you will.

Most of the rest of your post is simply a rehash of stuff that has already been addressed in other threads and I simply cannot be bothered digging up old replies. But IIRC your old soldiers experiences related to his memories of thousands of his personal friends getting shot at dawn, conscientious objectors being sent to France and executed when in fact none were,...oh yes the Musket Red Cap thing where they stood behind the troops in the trenches and made sure they went over the top and shot them if they didn't - again something that never happened.

By the way if you did know anything about Magill you would have known that he never served in France under Haig as BEF Commander. He left France at the back end of 1915 and never set foot back there again. The remainder of his war was spent writing propaganda for MI 7b.

As for Liddell Hart his war was restricted to two brief spells in France in 1915 and once in 1916 on the Somme - he was wounded on both occasions. Once back in England he was mainly employed training recruits. After the war he rewrote the Infantry Training Manual, his mentor was General Sir Ivor Maxse who commanded troops at the Battles of Hamel and Amiens, it was Maxse's experiences and application of tactics that Liddell Hart used to write the theories for which Liddell Hart later became famous for. Liddell Hart's own experiences didn't even enter into it. Liddell Hart's work was used by Chamberlain to bolster the argument for Appeasement - In short Liddell Hart was WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.

Who is our "Star Expert" by the way? Having had to study this period of history my reading list is quite extensive.

Interesting link on Hastings - because that is what it is a review of what someone else thinks Hastings is saying not what Hastings himself says.

Further up this thread Keith as provided a link to a BBC piece about the 10 most popular myths spouted about the Great War debunked by Dan Snow:

Myth 1 - Bloodiest War in history to that point - It wasn't

Myth 2 - Most soldiers died - They didn't the Crimean War was worse

Myth 3 - Men lived in trenches for years on end - They didn't

Myth 4 - The upper class got off lightly - They didn't fatalities among officers were 70% higher than for ORs

Myth 5 - "Lions led by donkeys" - Not true

"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today.

Rarely in history have commanders had to adapt to a more radically different technological environment.

British commanders had been trained to fight small colonial wars; now they were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the British army had ever seen.

Despite this, within three years the British had effectively invented a method of warfare still recognisable today. By the summer of 1918 the British army was probably at its best ever and it inflicted crushing defeats on the Germans.

Myth 6 - Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders - It wasn't UK losses were four to five times those of either the Aussies or the Kiwis

Myth 7 - Tactics remained unchanged - Nope they constantly evolved to meet the situations faced. Most innovations introduced during the war were pioneered by the British.

Myth 8 - No one won - Not so the war was a decisive win for the Allies

"Germany's battleships had been bottled up by the Royal Navy until their crews mutinied rather than make a suicidal attack against the British fleet.

Germany's army collapsed as a series of mighty allied blows scythed through supposedly impregnable defences.

By late September 1918 the German Emperor and his military mastermind Erich Ludendorff admitted that there was no hope and Germany must beg for peace. The 11 November Armistice was essentially a German surrender."

Myth 9 - The treaty of Versailles was very harsh - "The Treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.

It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway."

Myth 10 - Everyone hated it - Two personal sources of information my paternal grandfather (Sherwood Foresters) and my next door neighbour "Pa Collier" (KOSB) who lived through Gallipoli both said that they regarded it as the greatest experience of their lives and that in similar circumstances if given the choice they would do exactly the same.

Dan Snow:
"Like any war, it all comes down to luck. You may witness unimaginable horrors that leave you mentally and physically incapacitated for life, or you might get away without a scrape. It could be the best of times, or the worst of times.

Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time conditions might be better than at home.

For the British there was meat every day - a rare luxury back home - cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of more than 4,000 calories.

Remarkably, absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit's morale, were hardly above those of peacetime. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain."