"You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?"
Sighhhhh again - you haven't read all the history books - I strongly doubt if you have read any
No historian has ever denied the fact that the war was fought by mindlessly sending young men to their deaths until the other side gave up - if that is the case, that is simple butchry - show it isn't?
It is not the job of historians to say whether the War was worthwhile.
The war was fought in defence of a rapaciously exploitative system - if that is not the case - prove it - if it is - justify it.
"I have only claimed to know three things about this, which you and your supporters denied and ridiculed me for."
Everybody ridicules you for your ruthlessly dishonest use of historians - you are now a legend in your own time.
Justify your claim that all historians agree with you - you have given less than six and you haven't read them.
Nobody other than you is interested in "my historian is bigger than your historian" games (especially when you set rules excluding the ones you don't like) - if you knew the first thing about history you'd know that that is not how history works.
History is the sum total od accumulated knowledge, not the century later justification of a bloodbath because everybody recognises now that it was a ruthless waste of life to defend inbred Empires and exploitative big-business.
Answer that ad you might hase a point - until you do, you will continue to display yourself as the clown you are.
You might start by telling us how sending young men to they almost certain deaths in wave after wave constitutes "good leadership"
You won't of course.
You are using 'historians to defend your jingoism (even through people like Hastings, McMillan and even Sheffield have specifically condemned that same jingoism).
It was simply a war of attrition - with your vast superio#rity of knowledge show it was not - or show us who says it was not.
Jim Carroll