Teribus, you are quite right Keith has not used the word superb.

He has however stated or quoted in his comments the following:

18th Nov 1.16pm He(Haig)encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks ......... It (the British Army- my parenthesis)was led by men who if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders.

21st Nov 05.57am Military historians all accept that the army was an effective fighting force and competently led.

25th Nov 12.16pm (with regard to the army)the army was well led and had the support of the people.

29th Nov 07.39am (Basically a repeat of 18th Nov)

5th Dec 12.24pm The army performed well under competent leadership, no historian has been found who challenges that.

14th Dec 05.24am Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander

14th Dec 06.19am Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

14th Dec 01.49pm .......Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander.

14th Dec 05.28pm He was clear that Haig was a competent General so the shit operations were someone else's

Throughout his post he has maintained that modern Historian are in agreement that the army was well led.

Yet ........ he then goes on to quote one who suggests that Haig could have done things better.

Baiscally Keith has his own viewpoint which no one, not even modern historians will be able to alter one iota.

I have not read extensively on WW1, I have read a few (I've just taken Max Hastings' Catastrophe from the library) and am open to new information gathered from new sources but to dismiss historians because they are dead or left or right wing is frankly ridiculous. Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view.