"Historians can research the events of the time, and find out what Haig's grotesque errors were, and what the death toll was, and write it down. It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others." - None other than GUEST,Dave

Haig's record speaks for itself, his troops never once mutinied in field, and it was his tactics and innovations accepted and adopted by him that finally defeated the enemy, of course he made errors, everyone does EVEN YOU GUEST Dave - but Haig's successes by far outweighed his errors (Or are you one of those mean spirited individuals who are incapable of giving credit where credit is due).

Of course it is part and parcel of any historical work to present the author's conclusions and reasons for them. According to you it should be done by people who know S.F.A. about the subject and as for this:

"It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others."

What OTHERS? What "moral" compass? I have never such drivel in my life. To make a sensible and meaningful judgement on anything you have to have some understanding of what you are passing judgement on. People and events of the past can only be judged on the morals and mores of THEIR times NOT OURS, and in that vein:

Was the war necessary? - Yes it was to protect Great Britain's national interests and to honour Great Britain's Treaty obligations.

Did the people of the British Isles realise and accept the reasons for the action taken by the Government? - Yes they did fully and unstintingly from start to finish.

In comparison to the armies of other combatant nations were the Armies of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire well led? - Yes I think they were when all things are considered and oddly enough many others think the same.