Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

On the contrary this is just one single link out of thousands that will confirm what I have said. As an academic I weigh up all sides of an argument and then come to a conclusion. After studying WW1 propaganda in further education it's a subject I'm very familiar with.

Believing the propaganda was one, of many, reasons Britain entered WW1 as it stirred up public fervour to go fight for king and country. I'm not suggesting atrocities didn't happen, however many, as I mentioned previously have readily been dismissed as pure fiction.

In 1929 in an article published in The Nation "In 1916 the Allies were putting forth every possible atrocity story to win neutral sympathy and American support. We were fed every day [...] stories of Belgian children whose hands were cut off, the Canadian soldier who was crucified to a barn door, the nurses whose breasts were cut off, the German habit of distilling glycerine and fat from their dead in order to obtain lubricants; and all the rest." The point is is that they were stories. The crucified soldier tale has never been established, nor many other propaganda stories of the time. So I'd rather go with the evidence available than stick all my eggs into one basket as you seem to have done with Rubinstein.