Shock, Horror

[Bernard_Lewis]

Interesting thread this. I always wonder 'what would I have done' had I been Haig and without the benefit of hindsight? The aim was to get Germany out of France and Belgium. You can't do that by sitting in a trench and waiting forever. A French officer (Mangin) summed up the awful dilemma bearing in mind the technology/tactics of the time 'WHATEVER you do, you lose a lot of men...'.

Would Churchill have refused to fight on British soil due to the risk of heavy casualties if the Germans had carried out Sealion and captured a part of Britain? No. He'd have been first across the barricade.

And - with D-Day fresh in our minds - lets not forget that Eisenhower prepared TWO messages for the day after D-Day - one proclaiming the success; the other accepting full personal responsibilty for its failure. It was a huge risk but you had to get the Nazis out of France... Churchill saw the channel 'filled with blood' in his dreams while he told his wife on 5 June that by next morning 20,000 men might be dead.

Had D-Day been a disaster would it indeed by Buther Ike? (I add that personally I would have every sympathy with him on this - damned if he did and damned if he didn't).

Bernard Lewis

[PhilB]

I accept all you say, Bernard, but I`m still left with the feeling that, in Haig`s case, the losses were higher than they needed to have been. It`s difficult to read of the battles from Loos to Passchendaele without concluding that many men died unnecessarily. Losses may, by necessity, have been high, but the onus is still on the commander to minimize them. Mere mortals don`t have the benefit of hindsight, but one can expect that a commander, chosen for his military gifts, should act as if he had a modicum of hindsight. Phil B

[Guest woodyudet]

If you are looking at attrition, I suggest you consider the actions of 21st Army Group between D-Day and the creation of the Falaise pocket. Montgomery keeps attempting breakthroughs but his operations usually degenerate into attritional battles which are highly effective in wearing down German forces and preventing thier usage elsewhere.

I can't quite figure out how some people seem to criticise operations such as the Somme or 3rd Ypres far more than say the Petersburg operations in the American Civil War or operations such as Goodwood in WW2. All were ultimately succesful attritional battles and must be looked at in their political and social context.

If you have to fight well armed and trained opponents in good defensive positions such as Lee, Rupprecht or Rommel/etc, you are going to suffer heavy casualties.

I don't think Haig was any more callous than Grant or Montgomery. All 3 were suffering similar political pressures.

Look at the battles in context, then compare them with other similar situations.

I have never understood why in popular opinion:

Grant = good

Haig = bad

Montgomery = good.

Personally I don't see much difference between them [although Haig had a far greater number of men to command].

[Cliff. Hobson]

I am just on the last chapter of John Terraine's " The Educated General " a better dissertation on Haig would most certainly be difficult to find. I have seen comments that he tends to look at |Haig in a favourable light he most certainly does'nt do this when he analyses the the Third Battle of Ypres.

I would recommend to any one to read this book before drawing any conclusions regarding Haig.

[Desmond7]

Re: Wellington and the quote 'I don't know what they do to the French etc ...'

Allegedly used to describe the Inniskilling Dragoons with their 'wild Irish yell' ... not a hi-jack but truth or myth?

As for Haig .. I think he was just a military product of his time. He outlasted just about everyone else at that level. Agree on 3rd Ypres - his uncompromising attitude to that episode is hard to accept.

Des

[PhilB]

I ask myself this question:- Considering Haig`s lack of any identifiable gifts, (academic or otherwise), would he have got where he did (and stayed) without Royal connections? And I always reach the same answer! Phil B

[Greenwoodman]

Not sure I agree with his lack of identifiable academic gifts - Haig passed out first in his year at Sandhurst (out of 129) and was awarded the Anson Sword for doing so.

Winter's claim that the records for his year are blank has been disproved.

Source: British Army Review Aug 1992 in the article "Haig's Cadetship: a Reassessment" by S. J. Anglim, BA.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Phil

QUOTE - would he have got where he did (and stayed) without Royal connections.

Would Parliament have been so weak as to have kept him on, if he was so bad, or was it a case that there was no one better to take on the job.

Annette

[Guest woodyudet]

m13pgb ? Have you got some sort of class war going on in your head ?

Haig passed all of the academic hurdles put in front of him. [by todays standards they may not seem so rigorous, but what else was he supposed to do? Become a Professor at Oxford?]

Most Generals get to the top via some sort of patronage [combined with experience and the correct qualifications] ... You only have to look at Maxwell or Sir Ian Hamilton ...

[Frank_East]

I would say that Montgomery was very conscientious of his Great War battlefield experiences,the lessons to be learned and the ensuing casualties and the stalemate/ attrition slog of the Western Front.Something that Haig did not experience on horseback.

Montgomery was criticised by the American field commanders in Normandy for his caution in not throwing greater numbers into the battle to take Caen.The Goodwood operation was a holding operation designed to ensure that abundant German armour facing Richard O'Conner was not transferred to the weaker western sector commanded by Omar Bradley.The operation lasted a matter of days ending on 20 July. It was intended to wear down German armour in readiness for Bradley's breakout which was posponed from 20 July to 25 July. In the end Caen fell and its position became the anchor point for the encirclement of the 5th Panzer Army and the 7th German Army within the Falaise Gap resulting in the total collapse of German forces in Normandy.The Goodwood operation was said to be justified even though the 2nd British Army suffered heavy casualties. Overall,Normandy casualties have been described as grevious but they were considerably lower than had been expected, given that the Allies had broken through the Atlantic Wall.

Forward planning with the aid of Ultra and "General" Hitler contributed to the victory. Planning which saw some Allied Divisions approaching the Seine crossings by D Day +75 and nearly 40 Divisions ready to cross within the D Day +90 of the overall plan.There was nothing to compare this advance and destruction of enemy forces in the Great War even if it is compared to the Advance to Final Victory in 1918.

I do not think we can compare Montgomery's task with those of Haig.Haig was deploying the only strategy available to him and that was offensive based attrition against a foe who usually had well prepared defences.The Somme offensive which Haig called off in early November 1916 and led to the worse Britsh Army casualty loss in its history has recently been recorded as an offensive which broke the back of the German Army.This is a recent assessment from a German source which I cannot remember.If that was the case then the Germans did well to endure another two years in the field.

As it is, the Somme along with Passchendaele will be always identified with a large casualty figure while those operations in Normandy and generally the Second World War in Europe will not be.The difference is that there were little stalemates in the Second World War and the combatants were engaged in mobile warfare with air support playing a leading role on the battlefield.The Magnot line theory of defence had been left behind as late as 1940.

The outcome on the battlefield is dependant on a numbers of decisions made by a military commander and the direction given by his political masters.There is always the urge of the individual to try and please a superior.The decision may have been the wrong one but the human failing is the tendency to stick to it through thick and thin.Politicians, military commanders and dictators (such as Hitler) are highly susceptible to the habit. It is a question of having a Plan B. There does not seem to be much evidence that this was the case in the Great War.

Regards

Frank East

[AGWR]

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the WFA putting a picture of Haig on their website. Afterall, he was a key figure in WW1 however one rates his military achievements (with the benefit of hindsight).

Regards

Andy

[PhilB]

Surely not evidence of class war, woodyudet, to expect that the C in C is chosen on grounds of competence, not social standing? Difficult to see why anyone would think otherwise! After all:-

He was devoid of the gift of intelligible and coherent expression. (Lloyd George)

It is indeed strange that the man whose stubbornness in the offensive had all but ruined us on the Somme should from August 1918 onwards have become the driving force of the Allied armies (Fuller)

He might be, he surely was, unequal to the prodigious scale of events. (Churchill)

Now Haig had immense influence at the Palace. The King relied upon him. Without doubt, he was the Keeper of the Palace Gates. (Beaverbrook)

Haig failed perhaps to see that a dead man cannot advance, and that to replace him is only to provide another corpse. (Sixsmith)

In World War 1 Douglas Haig butchered the flower of British youth in the Somme and Flanders without winning a single victory.(Wm Manchester)

Haig was as shy as a schoolgirl. He was afraid of newspaper men - afraid of any men but those he gathered round him, and they were mostly like himself. If ever the history of the war is written as frankly as that of Napoleon's campaign has been, Haig will be held accountable for the appalling slaughter in the Somme battles and in Flanders, caused by his flinging masses of men against positions far too strong to be carried by assault". (Henry Hamilton Fyfe, Daily Mail)

Now I freely admit that I don`t know much about Haig other than what I`ve read second hand. However, it seems to me that if you`re right then Lloyd George, Fuller, Sixsmith, Churchill etc are all wrong! Phil B

PS If my memory serves me right, didn`t Haig get a 4th class degree at Oxford?

[Auimfo]

I'm no expert on Haig but from what I've learnt I wouldn't necessarily vote him my No.1 leader and as for the WFA front page......probably not.

Vote 1 'Pompey' Elliott for the WFA front page is what I say!!

(Without doubt and most unashamedly from an Aussie point of view that is).

Tim L.

[Chris_Baker]

He might be, he surely was, unequal to the prodigious scale of events.

And so was everyone else, on all sides, surely.

[Chris_Baker]

However, it seems to me that if you`re right then Lloyd George, Fuller, Sixsmith, Churchill etc are all wrong!

Not wrong, perhaps, but with an axe to grind, certainly.

[Anthony Pigott]

... After all:-

He was devoid of the gift of intelligible and coherent expression. (Lloyd George)

It is indeed strange that the man whose stubbornness in the offensive had all but ruined us on the Somme should from August 1918 onwards have become the driving force of the Allied armies (Fuller)

He might be, he surely was, unequal to the prodigious scale of events. (Churchill)

Now Haig had immense influence at the Palace. The King relied upon him. Without doubt, he was the Keeper of the Palace Gates. (Beaverbrook)

Haig failed perhaps to see that a dead man cannot advance, and that to replace him is only to provide another corpse. (Sixsmith)

In World War 1 Douglas Haig butchered the flower of British youth in the Somme and Flanders without winning a single victory.(Wm Manchester) ...

All the quotations are from a web page that begins:

"There is little doubt that Haig was an idiot."

Not the most impartial analysis I've seen.

Regards

Anthony

[michaeldr]

Impartiality on Haig: I’m not sure that’s ever going to be possible

However it seems to me that for a web site dealing with the Western Front in World War One, then for good or ill, the man who commanded the BEF from 1915 to 1919 cannot be ignored. The question should perhaps be whether or not he deserves the prominent position of their title page, as opposed say to a picture of Tommy Atkins.

With the passing a few days ago of the anniversary of Hamel, I have again been dipping into Dr Peter Pedersen’s book on that battle in the Battleground Europe series. The following brought a smile; “Monash’s deep respect for the Commander-in-Chief was based upon the way he bore his weighty responsibilities for he considered Haig to be ‘quite out of his depth’ technically.”

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the WFA putting a picture of Haig on their website. Afterall, he was a key figure in WW1 however one rates his military achievements (with the benefit of hindsight).

Regards

Andy

Well said.

Haig certainly did have had his bad points but he did command the British Army from late 1915 until after the Armistice and nothing can change that.

Who would you like to see on their (WFA) website page?

No one has come up with any alternatives.................

Whilst it is easy to sit back and criticise the WFA, perhaps next month they will feature someone else like Pershing or Petain and if they do full marks for being innovative with their website and getting people talking.

Ian

(WFA Member and proud of it!)

[John_Hartley]

Just a suggestion here, chaps and chapesses, but how about making some

of these comments about internal WFA matters on the Assocation's own discussion Forum. I've started the thread off.

John

[Clive Maier]

There is universal agreement about one thing; that Haig is a controversial figure. So while he can’t possibly be out of place on a Western Front web site, there is perhaps the hint of an endorsement there. The Western Front Association is fully entitled to take a position on Haig but, non-member that I am, I rather expected an impartial objectivity.

[paul guthrie]

WFA is a big church and we do not take positions on him, on pardons etc. , it would be our demise.

[PhilB]

Quote:- " I rather object to the implied condemnation of the many Forum users and their friends who will be working perfectly happily and successfully with this classification, or with no degree at all." (Dragon)

No implied condemnation, Gwyn, only inferred!

It`s just that a 4th class degree at that time does not immediately indicate a Rolls Royce intellect! Phil B (Happy with a Vectra intellect)

[michaeldr]

Who would you like to see on their (WFA) website page?

No one has come up with any alternatives.................

I did.

Gwyn

So did I

Michael D.R.

[Guest woodyudet]

Lloyd George, Fuller, Sixsmith, Churchill

all had axes to grind for various reasons. They all generally waited until Haig was dead before wielding the axe.

They are not impartial observers.

I would suggest they were polemics.

LG is especially dodgy ... he was minister for War in 1916 and PM 1917. Ultimately responsbility for Strategy fell to him. [cf Maurice Hankey - the supreme command]. Haig could not have stopped the Somme without prejudicing events on the French, Russian and ulitmately Romanian fronts. Ditto 1917. You have to look at these offensives in their entente political/diplomatic context rather than their British military or British political context.

[Guest woodyudet]

Viable alternative ... the only viable alternatives to Haig that I can see are Plumer and Rawlinson. Plumer turned the job down, and Rawlinson is surely 'tarred by the same brush' re. Somme.

Who was for more intelligent [but less well connected?] who could have done the job ... ?