Musket in response to your post of 13 Nov 14 - 03:09 AM:

1: Here is the list of the Historians who trashed Alan Clark's work, none of them have ever been accused of incompetent:

Brian Bond is a British military historian and professor emeritus of military history at King's College London. Bond served as a member of council of the Society for Army Historical Research and as President of the British Commission for Military History.

Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan FRSE FRHistS is a Scottish military historian, well known for his work on the administration of the British Army and the history of the First World War. He is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford, a brigadier of reserves, and a council member of the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland.

Gary Sheffield is an English academic at the University of Wolverhampton and a military historian. He has published widely, especially on the First World War, and contributes to many newspapers, journals and magazines. He frequently broadcasts on television and radio. Sheffield studied history at the University of Leeds under Edward Spiers and Hugh Cecil. He followed his basic degree course with a research MA. In 1985, he became a lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and studied at King's College, London under Brian Bond for a part-time PhD awarded in 1994. In 1999 he became a senior lecturer in the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and Land Warfare Historian on the Higher Command and Staff Course at the UK's Joint Services Command and Staff College. In 2005 he was appointed Professor of Modern history at King's College London. Since 2009, Prof Sheffield has been a Vice President of The Western Front Association.

Richard Holmes, was a British soldier and noted military historian, particularly well-known through his many television appearances. He was co-director of Cranfield University's Security and Resilience Group from 1989 to 2009 and became the Professor of Military and Security Studies at Cranfield in 1995. Of "The Donkeys" Holmes wrote the following:

"..it contained a streak of casual dishonesty. Its title is based on the 'Lions led by Donkeys' conversation between Hindenburg [sic] and Ludendorff. There is no evidence whatever for this: none. Not a jot or scintilla. Liddell Hart, who had vetted Clark's manuscript, ought to have known it."

Note: Basil Liddell Hart wrote to Alan Clark and asked him for a the source of the "Lions led by Donkeys" quote – Clark never replied (And well we know why don't we Musket).

John Alfred Terraine, though not permanently associated with any academic institution, was a leading British military historian and founding President of the Western Front Association from 1980 to 1997, after which he became its Patron. "One obituarist wrote that for sheer scholarship, the quality and accessibility of his writing and for his debunking of historical myths, Terraine was one of the outstanding military historians of the 20th century". He was for many years a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies; he had been awarded the Institute's Chesney Gold Medal in 1982. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 1987.

Robert Norman William Blake, Baron Blake was an English historian. Tutor in Politics at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1968 was elected Provost of The Queen's College, Oxford, a post held until retirement in 1987.

Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, Baron Dacre of Glanton, was an English scholar and historian of early modern Britain and Nazi Germany and Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University.

Alan John Percivale "A. J. P." Taylor FBA was an English historian who specialised in 19th- and 20th-century European diplomacy. Both a journalist and a broadcaster, he became well known to millions through his television lectures. His combination of academic rigour and popular appeal led the historian Richard Overy to describe him as "the Macaulay of our age".

Sir Michael Eliot Howard OM CH CBE MC FBA is a British military historian, formerly Chichele Professor of the History of War, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University and founder of the Department of War Studies, King's College London. Of Clark's book Howard wrote the following:

"As history, it is worthless", criticising its "slovenly scholarship".

By the way Musket the phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys " was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes.".

Now tell me Musket who was it that achieved VICTORY again?

2: So to counter Keith's All you come up with Clark - a total of ONE - ever heard of "the exception that proves the rule"?

3: I think that you will find that that particular nickname for Haig was coined after his death in 1928 and it was not coined by those he led but by those he reported to. Haig became Lloyd George's scapegoat.

With regard to the Somme in particular:

Haig did not choose to fight this battle. The combined political leadership of Britain and France met in late 1915 and decided on a massive joint offensive in the summer of 1916. A joint offensive had, logically, to be launched where the British and French sectors joined - ie the Somme. Haig pointed out that this was a bad choice, but was over-ruled.

He also knew that the British army wasn't ready. France and Germany had long had peace-time conscription for national service - so on the outbreak of the war they each had a couple of million trained reservists to call on. Britain had none - and the vast citizen army that Haig led had been built up from scratch. He wanted to delay - but was over-ruled.

The planning went ahead. It was thrown out of kilter by the German assault on Verdun in February 1916, which diverted a mass of French troops who would have otherwise been available at the Somme. Haig was ordered to go ahead anyway, to relieve pressure on the French (note that Falkenhayn - supreme German commander at this point - attacked the French because he considered Britain the more formidable foe of the two he faced).

The Somme faced the same old problems - poor communications, and the impossibility of moving troops rapidly from one sector to another. These were failings of technology, not of leadership. The casualties were dreadful - as everyone had always known they would be.

By September, Haig wanted to call the offensive off. He was denied the permission to do so - because of the ever-present need to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun.

When the battle was over, Britain had suffered around 600,000 casualties, Germany 650,000 (so were the German generals worse butchers than Haig?)

After the war, people looked around for scapegoats. Aided by the machinations of the politicians, opinion latched unfairly onto Haig.

In short - though Haig was no Marlborough, he did a ghastly job better than anyone else could have done. The real butchers were his political leaders.

The funny thing was that right at the end of the battle of the Somme the British actually achieved the breakthrough that they had originally planned but worsening weather (sleet, snow and mud) prevented any possibility of exploiting it.