"My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say.""
You haven't read "all the history books say" so you are lying - they don't
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?
Doesn't matter; they were not for your benefit.
Your gross stupidity and on history has long been common knowledge - now you have confirmed it yourself.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!
Must remember to put that in my 'future use' file.

This is a leading historians description of the competence of the leadership - he goes on to claim the Army only reached the point of becoming a fully efficient fighting force in 1918 - the year the war ended - so the army fought their way through the war below par - McMillan says the same.
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category. In some ways the British and other armies might have grasped the potential of technology earlier than they did. During the Somme, Haig and Rawlinson failed to understand the best way of using artillery."
Jim Carroll