Sorry Musket but it is you and your cohorts who are all hung up on who is a historian and who isn't, personally I couldn't care less. Perhaps that is because I have read and I have had to study the period.

What Keith has stated with regard to the First World War on a number of threads over the last twelve months still holds good:

1: As far as Great Britain was concerned it was vital to our national interests that Belgian neutrality be defended and that Germany's ambitions in Europe and overseas be checked before Germany became too powerful

2: That the British people fully realised why the country was going to war and that they fully supported that decision by the British Government and continued to do so throughout the war.

3: That in general throughout the course of the First World War British and Commonwealth Armies were well led in comparison to those of any other combatant force, ally or enemy. (That tiny professional army of ~440,000 in 1914 grew to and became Great Britain's first citizen Army of over 5,300,000 by 1918 when in just 100 days it smashed what was considered to be the greatest army on earth at that time).

Both Keith and myself have quoted the opinions of a number of historians who support those views by way of backing up our own opinions. You have even been challenged to name one who vehemently disagrees with those views and to-date you have come up with none - instead you bicker about who is and who is not a "historian".

Now c'mon then Musket tell us all about those patrolling Red Tops in the trenches forcing "our lads" over the top again - but give us a laugh and roll us yer cap first.