So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die. And the corrolary is that he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause, though the history books that he quotes are pretty vague about what that was. My contention is that it was petty political egos and vested commercial interests. Keith may say it was the survival of the British state and I would say thats the same thing. History books are irrelevant, the difference between Keith and myself is whether it was worth that sacrifice to preserve a national identity. Especially when the vast majority of those doing the fighting and dying had no stake in that national identity, never had and never would.

So what do these historians beloved of Keith, lets call them apologists for want of a better word, say on that? I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals. A bit of a socialist viewpoint it would seem. But I think that is why they say the war had to be fought. Those longer ago (and indeed many more recent, we have seen now that Messinger does not pass muster with Keith, although he is still writing) may have a more nuanced view.

Jim's point is different, it is that if the politicians and military brass had been more competent the war could have been won with less loss of life. I have nothing to say on that, except that of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it. And that I would rather it had been lost with fewer casualties than won with as many as there were.