"Everything I have claimed is fully endorsed in the works of Margaret Macmillan (Canadian), Catrional Pennel, Max Boot (US) and many others."
When are you going to accept the fact that hit and rung dips into authors does not constitute full endorsement of anything?
It is obvious you haven't read Margaret McMillian, as you claim - how could you have read a book that size when you can't handle a single posting of any length here?
You have never read Catherine Pennell, or Max Boot (or are you now adding them to your claims).
Haven't you learned by your cock-ups over Christine Kenneally, Max Hastings, Gary Sheffield and your spectacular cock-up on the position the left took on WW1... and all the other foot-in- mouths you have displayed by selecting bits and missing the main story?
Not only do you not understand the work of historians, you don't even understand the function of history as a science, as your outrageous 'shelf-life' of dead historians proves beyond doubt.
I read enough of the McMillan book to realise that you have no clue as to what she has really said about the war - it bears no resemblance to your ludicrous claims.
A historian presents a set of facts coupled with his or her conclusion drawn from those facts - the facts should be indisputable, opinion is a matter of the author's own outlook on life.
Take Gary Sheffield's "waste of human lives" - which is, given the number, an indisputable fact.
His statement that is was worthwhile is based on nothing but his own attitude to the war, the Empire and human life in general - yet you present it as divine writ because it suits your own political/philosophical stance to do so.
If the contrary arguments are "lies" then deal with the arguments - your extreme right wing position is no more valid than a left wing one - you are an extremist in the most extreme.
You prove nothing on the basis of your right-wing beliefs only by your dismantling the arguments themselves.
At no time have you put forward your own arguments - just out of context quotes of others as if they are indisputable because of who said them - that is a despicably cowardly way to behave.
"Orthodox military historians tend to disagree."
There you go again - by orthodox, you appear to mean those who agree with your rightist views which includes extreme rightist tabloid journalists.
All historians are human beings who bring a lifetime of political and religious opinions, experiences and ideologies to their work - their facts may (or may not) be accurate; their opinions are - well - a matter of opinion, and no opinion should be disregarded or dismissed because it doesn't coincide with your own (or because the author is dead - still can't get over that one!!).
Now how about putting your own opinions instead of hiding behind the assumed opinions of others - it really is both educational and very satisfying.
Jim Carroll