I DO hope that John Phillpott will not mind if, yet again, I disagree in a friendly, but fundamental way with his views on the First World War.

While his latest unacceptable opinion follows a book review (Evening News, March 31) I am astounded that he could describe Field Marshal Douglas Haig as a " much-maligned soldier who has been held unfairly responsible for the slaughter on the Somme and Third Ypres".

Detailed research among the Cabinet and war diaries of Commonwealth countries presents a totally different view from the heavily-changed and sanitised versions available within the UK.

Douglas Haig was a career soldier who used his family's and, later, his wife's Royal connections to further a military career that saw him promoted well beyond his level of competence.

The Somme, a battle that was fought without any serious military objective, saw 70,000 casualties on day one (17,500 of whom were killed) due to the most appallingly inept tactics. The battle should, and could, have been stopped within two hours of the start, but it was allowed to continue for months.

Haig's "leadership" saw the wholesale slaughter of a generation of British manhood. It saw the end of Britain's volunteer army. Surely we all remember the Pals Battalions who marched so bravely to their deaths for nothing?

Fifty-four weeks later, in Flanders, he repeated all the same mistakes. The battle for Passchendaele was fought across totally unsuitable terrain, using an inadequately trained conscript Army and contrary to the explicit instructions of the War Cabinet.

The result? Wholesale slaughter for no military gains.

John, I will this year be on The Somme on July 1. I will be in Flanders on November 11. Join me at the Thiepval Memorial and the Menin Gate. Read the names there and in nearby Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries.

Then look me in the eye and repeat the Haig was much maligned. You will not be able to.

BARRIE DOBSON,

Fernhill Heath,

Worcester.