Now those of you who frequent the WW1 threads on here will know exactly where I stand on Alan Clark the "military historian". His lions led by donkeys rubbish has scarred the teaching and in many cases the interpretation of the Great War for generations. He isn't even a particularly illuminating or accurate historian. The supposed donkeys quote from Falkenheyn turned out to have been unattributed and probably even made up by Clark himself. Oxford's professor of military history Michael Howard wrote "As history it is worthless" and criticised Clark for "slovenly scholarship". He essentially decided what sort of a chap he thought Haig was and then shifted facts and inferences to prove his point. His personal character was also riddled with an arrogance and he possessed a personal moral code that defies even the use of "amoral". He did however appear to have the saving grace of having served in the Household Cavalry. It now appears, from papers produced by his widow, that in fact he managed to avoid service by some clever shenanigans involving signing on to the Reserve whilst at Eton and doing some buckshi training. I cannot begin to describe the satisfaction that the removal of even this level of qualification from Clark's persona gives me. Petty I know but nevertheless satisfying. The cnut.