Thanks for the reply. I guess the important thing is to keep the discussion going in the realization that history is the interpretation of events after the fact. I have no hardship with authors making a case, but would prefer it be done from fact (whatever that means) and not from emotion. Not that good history can be devoid of it, but it is more satisfying to read the real story and less of a let-down if one's understanding isn't inflated by fancy first. After decades of Pierre Berton's image painted in the book Vimy of a crushing Canadian defeat on a determined enemy, I read the "real" account in another book last summer, purchased at the gift shop at the battlefield memorial, that paints a less emotional picture. Seems IIRC the Germans were thinly strung across the ridge and in the process of moving back to more defensible positions when the storm broke. Yet the legend persists. Not to take away from the bravery of the Canadians that day - who nonetheless suffered great loss. As I mentioned before - battles cost lives in the Great War, whether you were winning or losing.
Legends are important things to have so I am not surprised that we tell ourselves stories, and fictional ones seem to be more palatable than true ones. I just hope that the real ones never get completely lost among the romanticism. Surely it's important to remember that, too.