"I claimed that the army was well led, because that is what military historians say."
The ones you have selected do (or one of them does - will go into the fact that the only historian who backs your claims about leadership is the one doing a study on General Hague - the rest say nothing of substance on the matter.
"I am not so arrogant as to think I know better"
Good - you know nothing beyond your cut-'n-pastes and you don't understand them fully!
Are you really admitting not to being 'infallible' about something - a move in the right direction at least!
"The programmes have not addressed the army and its leadership."
The programmes addressed the fact that the officers and Kitcheners recruiters misled the soldiers on the duration of the war and the ease in which the Somme would be fought - crap leadership.
The upper echelons of the military should have been well aware of the impossibility of Mons and should have advised against it - they didn't and thousands of men lost their lives in meaningless slaughter.
The Battle of Loos was a similar failure
"French had already been criticised before the battle and lost his remaining support in both the Government and Army as a result of the British failure at Loos and his perceived poor handling of his reserve divisions in the battle.[19] He was replaced by Haig as Commander of the British Expeditionary Force in December 1915.[20]"
The Programmes haven't dealt with Loos yet - next week possibly
Crap leadership from the very top to the officers on the ground telling porkies.
Jim Carroll