Sir, most people who are interested in history for history's sake have no agenda other than trying to divine what really happened. This is especially true of those who take deep offense - as I did - when they find out that there was a great deal of the history they were taught in school was sorely lacking...and sometimes deliberately so.

For example, those of us who grew up in the Deep South of the 1970's were taught that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about economics and states' rights, but our teachers never mentioned the statements of Confederate leaders that strongly indicated otherwise. Now we know better. Besides, if the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then why would the Mississippi state legislature wait until 2013 - yes, 8 years ago - to finalize ratification of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery?

Historical hindsight is almost never 20/20, but is always incomplete. However, this doesn't mean that the history we are taught is wrong. We have to be very careful to refrain from buying into conspiracy-theory claptrap.

I am confident that my article showed how the US and the UK could have invaded across the Channel as early as 1943 if they'd really wanted to. Your assumption of any agenda on my part wildly misses the mark in that for all his flaws, I'm a fan of Churchill, and given the situation at the time, I would have heartily agreed with any such decision to postpone a cross-Channel invasion if the aim was to prolong the war on the Eastern Front, thus greatly weakening both the Nazis and the Soviets.

After all, when the two greatest enemies to your own freedom are fighting each other to the death, the time is not to take sides, but to break out the popcorn.

BUT I didn't include that statement in the article. Why? Because a proper article on history is about objectivity, not opinion...much less any agenda.