"Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1."
No he isn't Keith - he is one historian
He expresses the establishment view - which is no more valuable than any other person in terms of opinion - certainly not of the people who actually fought on the front, which you pair of jingoists have sought to denigrate (step up from shooting them if they stepped out of line, I suppose)
Up to these arguments, you had never heard of Sheffield - your first choice was a tabloid journalist - you stumbled across him in your attempts to justify the indefensible.
He is only a "leading historian" because his defence of the war from the point of the establishment coincides with your own jingoism.
"Yes he does, but you will need to read his books."
But you haven't Keith - you stumbled across him by accident and have only read out-of-context quotes.
If you read what he says fully, you will realise that expertise is on the actual war - his expertise does not go beyond that therefore he is in no position to comment on what would have happened had the war gone the other way.
Democracy was not any more under threat under Germany as it was elsewhere - "gallant little Belgium" our ally and one of the ploys for conning men to enlist, was quite free to massacre 10 million Congolese and cut the hands of their workers if they didn't work hard enough - how "democratic" was that.
The conditions in the British Colonies were little better - no democracy to be threatened by Germany there.
As you have pointed out with your own quotes - it was not about freedom, or democracy or better conditions - it was a colonial war on a world scale.
How about coming out from behind an establishment historian who you haven't read and responding to the actual situation?
Jim Carroll