burlington Posted 9 July , 2004 Share Posted 9 July , 2004 I did one of my irregular dips in to the western Front Association web site this evening. I was confronted with a large photo of Haig. Now I know that there are many pros & cons to Haig BUT should he be on the front page at all? I don't know. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 9 July , 2004 Share Posted 9 July , 2004 He was greeted at Swansea in the early 1920's by a large crowd of veterans who cheered him to the rafters. So you tell me please... Bernard Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob2347 Posted 9 July , 2004 Share Posted 9 July , 2004 They must have all been on the Generals Staff. He gets a No vote from me. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Burgoyne Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Yes and why not, he was the man that saw the British Army to victory. I noticed that Chris used a photo of Haig to opened the Gallery section. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Michelle Young and Martin Hornby, the two people who are responsible for the design and development of the WFA site, are members of this forum. I'm sure they will comment when they see this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob2347 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 This is where it gets interesting, if Lloyd George had a bit more of a backbone and Haigh had not had the favour of the King he would have been removed before he became universally known as "Butcher Haig". He wasn't referred to as the"Butcher" out of respect. People of his day did cheer, after all they had won the war. Gosh, we still do it today when we play Germany at football, if we win or loose we still retort "Well, who won the war anyway" He conducted his bloody war from a desk, and never tasted or shared the true horrors of what was being inflicting on his men. The Duke of Wellington and Montgomery were both hands-on leaders and not prepared to throw away lives based on a strategy of "one to one killing", (then we will have won "cos" our numbers are greater than theirs). Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hill 60 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 He conducted his bloody war from a desk, and never tasted or shared the true horrors of what was being inflicting on his men. Rob - I don't wish to get into a discussion about Haig, I don't know enough about the man to come down on either side of the fence and to be honest he isn't in my area of interest. However, I disagree with part of your statement (quoted above). OK, he didn't taste or share the horrors his army had to face, but in his position it would have been foolish and irresponsible for him to go anywhere near the fighting; if he'd been killed then we'd have lost our senior man, albeit a contraversial one, which wouldn't have been good for moral or even the war effort. Now I'm going to dive back into my dugout before the rain of steel starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 before he became universally known as "Butcher Haig". The Duke of Wellington and Montgomery were both hands-on leaders and not prepared to throw away lives based on a strategy of "one to one killing", (then we will have won "cos" our numbers are greater than theirs). 'Butcher Haig' This appendage surely only arrived after WW1 from "Historians",Also I don't recall Monty leading many a Bayonet Charge @ El Alamein?????,Wellington referred to his Men as Scum,"I dont know about the French but they sure as hell Scare me!!",being one of his attributed quotes However as regards his Picture being @ the head of the WFA Site I see no problem he was the Man of that time,an inescapable fact,however history veiws Him, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 http://www.firstaif.info/42/level2/leaders...utcher_haig.htm nuff said! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Hold on gang. We've had loads of discussion on the pros and cons of Haig. Use the search facility and you'll find lots of it. Nothing to stop further discussion but it might be better to add it to existing threads on the subject, where the arguments are already developed. The original question was should he be on the WFA website. Frankly I do not see why not, but that's really a matter for WFA, surely. As an aside that may be of interest: when I ran the WFA site, for a while I had a photograph of Lijssenthoek military cemetery on the home page. It was a view where you could hardly see a break between acres of headstones - a very poignant and forceful image for an organisation dedicated to 'remembering'. That was my logic anyway. At a WFA Chairmen's conference, it was suggested that WFA should not have such an image on the website! So you can't win 'em all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenwoodman Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 The WFA have been accused of being non-controversial in their policies. Douglas Haig's image is displayed on their website and they are apparently accused of being too controversial. Another case of "can't win". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 he fought, well or badly as did possibly many others so why does he not deserve to be shown? Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob2347 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 To clarify Wellington's quote he said “They are the scum of the Earth, but what fine fellows we have turned them into”. Monty may not have lead many a Bayonet Charge @ El Alamein, but he was following close at hand in his caravan, after all it was a sandy/beach campaign. My intention towards Haig as I'm sure you knew was not to suggest he (Haig) went over the top with bayonet in hand, but that he should have shown concern for the suffering/death of his men. Yes I know he was endeavouring to win a war, but his strategy should have been better structured, and not one based merely on attrition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 .... and not one based merely on attrition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with attrition as strategy in warfare. It has been used to great effect over the centuries to win conflicts. Sieges for instance minimise the number of casualties sustained by the atacking force. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob2347 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Attrition of his own men, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Attrition of his own men, I don't think so. But thats not what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 When I first got interested in the Great War, I was one of those who believed the "Haig The Butcher" tag. As I've read and learned more , I've started to come to the conclusion(as the Government of the time did), that I can't think of anyone better , who could have won the war, in any other way than he did. Imagine you're Commander in Chief of the BEF- go on say the Govt.- win the war for us.We''ll take the glory, and if it goes wrong we'll blame you. It took the Germans nearly 4 years to come up with a system designed to avoid the trench slog(and that didn't work). Haig followed this up with an idea of his own, which was the start of the Allied drive to victory. I think , if the Govt. of the day(by that I mean Lloyd George) could have found a way to replace him, and still win, they would have. Yes, many died for little gain, but it was a bloody war, and many other highly thought of generals were not able to see another way round the problem of the Western Front. Foch in particular, was rather fond of the frontal attack, Pershing refused to accept the advice of experienced trench warfare liason officers and Falkenhayn tried to bleed France white( or if he didn't then Verdun was a bigger failure than the Somme). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob2347 Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Max, Sorry, was not my intention to mislead. My comments were made in response to earlier comments etc. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 10 July , 2004 Share Posted 10 July , 2004 Food for thought: in the Great War the main body of the British Army (eventually 1 million plus?) was in constant contact with the main body of the enemy army for just over 4 years and lost (from memory) 750,000 men? Awful tally. In WWII the main body of the British Army was in contact with the main body of the enemy army (in France 40, Norway, Greece, Africa, Far East etc. - and then France 44-45) for what - 2+ years all in and with all respect some of the numbers involved in far flung theatres were relatively small (though obviously the lads could still end up killed irrespective of numbers). From memory we lost 250,000 men in a relatively sort time. Who talks of 'Butcher Monty' or 'Butcher Ike'? Just a thought. Bernard Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woodyudet Posted 11 July , 2004 Share Posted 11 July , 2004 Rob, Haig - not Haigh. Wellington - 'a hands on general' - well obviously. Its a bit difficult to command an army in 1815 from a desk !!! Montgomery's casualty rate %s during June & july 1944 are actually higher than the Somme campaign. El alamein was also an attritional battle. Haig did command on horseback for most of his career up until 1915 when his responsibilities became so large that it became impossible. How are you supposed to command several Corps in the front line in 1915-1918 ?? The communication technology did not exist. For an Army commander 1863-1923 its much more useful to be behind the lines with the limited C3 equipment at your disposal than to act like Marshall Bazaine and ride around bravely ordering gun batteries around without exercising control over your troops or being able to liase with higher command &/ politicians. The most useful historical comparison [if they are useful] is probably to compare Haig with Grant or the elder moltke. They had to command large numbers of men with rudimentary C3 facilities and often suffered high casualties in order to obtain victory. Senior commanders also have responsibilities to their military and civilian superiors and therefore have to be in a position where they can communicate with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 11 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 11 July , 2004 What caused me to start this topic was that when I logged on to the WFA site, I was immediately hit with a LARGE picture of Haig. Not of the men, the families left behind, the memorial or cemetaries or even the ground on which they fought, but of Haig sitting calmly at his desk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 11 July , 2004 Share Posted 11 July , 2004 The question I would ask Burlington is, If you had of logged on and saw three tommies stading in a trench, would it have been worthy of comment? Whilst i think it is perhaps a little contreversial and certainly very in your face, I beleive he has as much right to be up there as any others. (for the record I would not have put the pic there in such prominance) I am not a lover of Haig myself though i do struggle to see who would have been better placed to do the job, but he did serve and in doing so whilst he did not give his life, i do beleive he would have if it had been needed, he certainly gave his reputation! regards Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 11 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 11 July , 2004 Whilst i think it is perhaps a little contreversial and certainly very in your face, I beleive he has as much right to be up there as any others. (for the record I would not have put the pic there in such prominance) Armourer From this para. I really think that you understand why I did it. It does seem to be contoversial, it is very much 'in your face', and this is how it hit me when I logged on. Hence my posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 11 July , 2004 Share Posted 11 July , 2004 I had suspected that the British class system had enabled Haig to treat the mass of men as being dispensible. However, the contributions of woodyudet & Bernard, above, have caused a rethink! Particularly where Grant was concerned. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Maier Posted 11 July , 2004 Share Posted 11 July , 2004 A war of attrition is a competition in callousness, and that’s what the Great War became. It is a hellish concept in which troops and civilians are no more than materiel. Haig bears a heavy responsibility but so do many others on all sides, and it was only possible because governments and peoples had a will for war. It was the strongest of medicines but it does not seem to have cured us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now