Gary Mead wrote a balanced biography of Haig.
He acknowledged his failures but is overwhelmingly positive about his career and achievements in WW1.

It is dishonest to pick out only the few negatives to give a false impression of the book which is overwhelmingly positive.
Read it Fred, or are you really Rag?


Mead's book supports my view that generally the army was well and competently led.
You will find nothing written for at least twenty years by any historian that disputes that, so why do you?

Your beliefs are just myths based on politics not history.