Your editorial attracted my interest up to the final two paragraphs which perpetrated a myth I had hoped had faded into oblivion. The myth is that British generals were inferior to other combatant generals and, as a result, New Zealand troops were subjected to a higher casualty rate. It should be obvious to any study of the Western Front, that all combatant armies were fighting in exactly the same way. This is why the battles stalemated for many months on all the major fronts.
If I am right, why single out the British generals? Surely the opposing generals were equally useless. For NZ to have had an independent command, it would have needed an army of at least twice as many as it sent to Europe. Do you think the outcome of Passchendaele would have been different if New Zealand troops had been under the command of the French Marshal Philippe Petain instead of [Field Marshal Sir Douglas] Haig?
Christopher Barradale, Parnell.