You have come up with three historians - two, Sheffield and Todman, are or were employees of the British military establishment and Daniel De Groote, who set up The Dharma Institute, financially backed by Danish industrialist and munitions magnate Alvar Hanso and his Hanso Foundation – all three have direct connections to militararism
All three, you claim, back your argument that those who died in W.W.1., did so for a good cause, and went to their deaths voluntarily, believing in a cause and knowing what they fought for – where do any of these, somewhat dubious character witnesses make any such claim?
De Groote argues; "Haig has been accused, perhaps justifiably, of being insensitive to suffering. His religious beliefs may have inspired a confident but dangerous fatalism. Certainty in life everlasting could have caused him to be careless with lives temporal. But, given that this war was destined to involve massive losses, would a more sensitive commander have succeeded?"
He goes on to recall that "many soldiers would eventually remember Haig as the Butcher of the Somme," - Terrytoon asked for evidence that this was the case – there you have it.
Todman's article is based entirely on an analysis of a musical, 'Oh What a Lovely War- a total red-herring; both the musical and the 'Blackadder' series were satirical fantasies based on W.W.1. – neither were historical documentaries, nor did they claim to be – they were what they were SATIRICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF AN INHUMANLY CONDUCTED BLOODBATH.
You both have claimed throughout, a consensus among historians in support of the idea that the war was justified, supported and well conducted – this it what you have managed to dredge up over the last 24 hours desperate trawl through the net - where is your consensus?
Way back, you were presented with a list of over 100 war historians, all studying W.W.1. from different aspects, many conflicting, sometimes diametrically – no consensus there, in fact, you claimed the list was too long to be understood.
The evidence put forward by some of those actually fighting, you have described as "lies" or minority views, yet you have put forward no evidence that there was either conscious enthusiasm for the war or support for the leadership – none whatever.
Those who gave their lives were either tricked or coerced into doing so – the cause they gave their lives for, on both sides, was for Imperial domination, the continuing enrichment of the wealthiest and strongest nations by exploiting the poorest.
Must try harder, I would say
Jim Carroll