Only one thing wrong with that.

Haig directed a successful campaign. General John Pershing credited him at the time as 'the man who won the war'. It can be argued that he took an unprepared army and turned them in to a successful fighting force. He had to cope with poor communications, average weaponry and most importantly, a larger force fighting his army.

Of course, as is only right in England, a thorough debunking occurred. More recent historians such as Corrigan and Sheffield again assert him as a man who delivered the victory.

Posted By: InTheAbsenceOfAHorse, Oct 27, 16:12:18