In my WWI class today we talked at great length of how the generals of WWI (and in particular the British) were, all in all, horrifically awful generals. I can't really see how they would have been put into put into such positions and how they could have stayed as generals for a long duration if they really were that terrible. One of the examples my teacher provided was Douglas Haig, so I'm wondering if he had any redeeming qualities other than, as my teacher puts it, "a conviction that he could end the war".
I see /u/NMW permanently frustrated by this conception that the British commanders were incompetent buffoons who thought that it was still the 19th century, and many people seem to believe that Blackadder's portrayal, while humourous, is entirely accurate.
I'm going to link several answers from /u/NMW here, and my knowledge of WW1 may be enough to address any questions, but please don't be offended if I refer you to /u/NMW himself.
Great, lengthy, in depth answer on Haig's competency. (Read this first.)
Armoured vehicles in WW1 (brief mentions of Haig).
Haig wasn't a perfect general, but he was certainly not the idiot Blackadder portrays him as.