Sorry Dave but as I think you are new to this discussion I feel I can must out what Keith means by 'all historians'. They , by his definition

- Have written history books about WW1 in the last 20 years
- Are 'eminent historians' and respected by their peers
- Write books that are popular enough to be sold in mainsteam bookshops

I have pointed out, on many occasions, that unless he has read every single one in the world that fits this criteria he cannot claim they all agree. Keith's response is that we need to find historians that do not agree. We can of course say that, as it is his claim, it is up to him to prove it but that seems to fall on deaf ears. So, to save a continuation of the circular argument that has gone on for years it is simpler to use the term 'Keith's historians'.

Got it? :-)

Cheers

DtG