Question Author
Steve it's just a question, I don't view Haig as a great military leader, all I'm asking is does the hitorical evidence stand up to criticise him?
When you look at the Great War the sad truth is, is that the means with which we had developed things to kill people far exceded the means with which we could transport them alive.
People talk of the slaughter but how else could the war be prosecuted?
Sir John French's failure at Loos (Haig's battle) meant we had no chance to turn the German flank, so we dug in for trench warfare, armour was in it's infancy, aircraft was in it's infancy so the only solution was to shell it and storm it.
Cambrai was not a model that could've been rolled out across the lines because it would just create bulges thus leaving 2 flanks prone to attack and to make obvious the site for the next aliied attack added to that any gains were often uninvestable.
The Great War was a war of attrition, the technology (no wireless), the equipment (no tanks, few aircraft) and the politics (what we have we hold) made it so.
We had to attack they were happy to defend.
Haig did an incredible thing in Kaiserschlacht by relinquishing control to Foch, especially after Petain had been so slow to send in reinforcements, and the French refused to send help to us, all this after the Somme!