Haig

[Jim Gordon]

[quote= If the British (Empire) had been asked to vote whether to enter the war or not, knowing in advance that there would be multi-millions of dead, maimed, wounded, missing, widowed and orphaned, would they have voted "Yes, it will be worthwhile"?

Although not an exact parallel to your question I well remember 3rd. Sept, 1939 when WW2 began. Although a vote was not required to enter the war, which everyone was convinced would be as costly and bloody as the last, there was resigned acceptance by the man in the street that it was going to happen again. Some people actually revelled in it. Maybe the fact that there was 4,000,000 unemployed at the time had something to do with it.

Regards

Jim Gordon

[PhilB]

Jim, perhaps the price of losing WW2 justified higher losses than WW1? Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

Reverting to the "pyrrhic" angle, Andy, I suppose one test of whether the victory was pyrrhic would be this:-

    If the British (Empire) had been asked to vote whether to enter the war or not, knowing the outcome in advance and  that there would be multi-millions of dead, maimed, wounded, missing, widowed and orphaned, not to mention the huge monetary cost, would they have voted "Yes, it will be worthwhile"?

    I don`t know the answer (but I suspect I do!)        Phil B

I don't know if that is a valid question to consider - not that it isn't an interesting one!

What would be pyrrhic victories? Hannibal's life was full of them - maybe Tet in our own era ... the US won the battle and in doing so, lost the war - though for reasons unconnected with the battle.

To ask a population to vote on a war is something even the continual march towards Democracy doesn't yet do - anywhere. The simple fact of the matter, gov'ts see things differently than the populace. Would either of the two greatest democracies on this earth now have voted for the present conflict? Would the US have voted for WWII on Dec 6th? Would they have voted for war in 1916 - Clearly they didn't ... Wilson "kept us out of war" ...

That is not always a bad thing. However, to the Brit on the street - while many might consider the Channel Ports as being signficant and some might be whipped uup into some patriotic ferver about HSF, I doubt they'd sacrifice Uncle Harry or Brother William for them.

Some people will go to war for causes - those that left the US and Britain for the Spanish Civil War - some committed and some merely bored ... but few left knowning what it was REALLY like. In August of 1914, if the people had known what Ieper would become - I doubt there would have been flags in the street. Governments by their nature see existence far differently than individuals. I believe it comes down to "What's in it for me?" and few of us actually say ... "Yup, I'll do my duty and be blown to bits" for anything that is cerebrial. It's up to either the enemy to make it personal - Pearl Harbor - Invasion of Belgium or the Gov't to make it a matter of duty ... but I don't think it's in the cards for people to consider the "facts" and say "yes, let's go out and spend the retained wealth and social strength built up from a century after Trafalgar in the muddy fields of Flanders to keep the Hun from lording over the French and maybe someday us ..."

War for the masses is something forced on them and duty to be shouldered ... not something anybody volunteers for from rational consideration - ie a vote.

But, again, maybe we're just talking crosswise about terms. WWI was certainly inconclusive about the domination of Europe and World Economic Power - that can be said without reservation. Was it worth it? Perhaps a better test would be what would it have been like if we lost? or if it was Pyrrhic, leaving France aside, was Britain "lost" afterwards ... Maybe my Anglophilia is getting in the way ... but I think not. Though clearly sinking into the Second level power it would be in 1945, it was still a nation strong and determined ... one exploring the new while conserving the old ... and though the financial center had shifted from London to NYC, and perhaps the military power to Economic Empire of America versus the Victorian Empire of the 19th Century - still the standard bearer for Freedom and Liberty ...

Cue: Sunset scenes in Kent, York, the Scottish Cost ... scene of Big Ben, Graves End ... a quick view of the Victory, Edinburgh Castle and the Tower ... dawn seen from atop the dover cliffs and the view down the main drive at Windsor - all to Emerson Lake and Palmers "Jerusalem"

Curtain.

[andigger]

Moreover, it was a stratagem that he repeated again to real excess at Passchendaele 1917.....

I am currently reading Passchendaele by Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson. Although I have not finished the book, up to this point (just concluding the Battle of Langemarck) they are making the argument that at least in this instance it is Gough who is 'the thrusting" general. Their descriptions almost make Gough the decisive leader and Haig more complaicent.

I know very little about Haig. Do Prior and Wilson have a real argument here?

Andy

[PhilB]

The idea of the populace voting to go to war or not was, of course, hypothetical. It`s the only (imaginary) way I could think of to decide whether a victory was pyrrhic or not. A recent string seemed to come to the conclusion that we could have been better off if we`d lost! Millions lost in the war - the only few who did well were the generals and the war profiteers!

Ws it a pyrrhic victory? Probably! Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

I don't think WW1 was an example of a Pyrrhic victory. Huge numbers of combatants were lost, compared with previous wars. But it is not the absolute numbers that constitutes the definition. The proportion lost versus those who survived did not disable the armies of the Entente. Everyone was exhausted by the effort but Germany was not left alone to walk unaway unhindered. The country was utterly dominated in the months after November by the 'victors'. This is why it was not a Pyrrhic victory IMHO.

Robert

[PhilB]

But it is not the absolute numbers that constitutes the definition.

Robert

Quite right, Robert - it`s whether the gain was worth the cost! Phil mB

[AndyHollinger]

I think there are few wars worth the cost ... Maybe the US Civil War ... WWII because the lines of Good and Evil are so well drawn (for us in the west) ... any others that are not Pyrrhic?

*****

Nobody rose to the use of ELP? I am hurt ... or maybe just dated!

[PhilB]

I have to admit, Andy - I don`t know what ELP means!

But I will be visiting the scenes of Grant`s battles next week!

Is the Wilderness still wild? Phil B

[Bernard_Lewis]

The cost of victory was enormous. However, I doubt if the Frenchman or Belgian of 1918 thought of the freeing of his homeland as a 'pyrrhic' victory. Can we imagine Churchill in WWII accepting a lasting German presence on British soil on the basis that it would be costly to evict them? He'd have got out of the trench and advanced alone if needs be...and given onlookers an alternative version of his two fingered salute at the mere suggestion of doing otherwise!

The French general Mangin summed it up 'WHATEVER you do, you lose a lot of men'. If you look at the terrible WWI losses and compare to WWII it looks horrendous (and it is) - but remember that from 1914 to 1918 the main British army was in constant contact with the main army of the enemy. WWII losses were lower - but the time in contact with the MAIN body of the enemy was - 6 weeks in 1940 and summer 1944 to 1945 (and even then I'm ignoring the Eastern Front where 66% of the German army was) - work out the loss ratios and the gap narrows considerably. So who are the 'bungling butchers'? (Maybe just in the main men given responsibilities far in excess of their capabilities). I vaguely recall Churchill commenting on Haigs death along the lines of 'He was not equal to the immense task - but we had no-one better'. In 1914 the peace time Army got by with 18 Brigadier Generals. By 1916 it was 168 on the Western Front alone - no wonder some of the forced promotions turned out to be duffers - promoted way beyond their capabilities at a desperate time...can we simply blame them? RANT OVER...

Bernard

[Desmond7]

ELP's Jerusalem .. and Haig. YEAH.

Mr. Hollinger ... you've got soul ... in a prog.rock kindaway.

Haig - product of the times. Big house, big duties, big responsibilities.

Signed many orders which sent men to their deaths but he did so because HIS and THEIR Empire was his cause.

Are we who live in the 21st century, post Vietnam multi media expose of war at the nastiest, fit to judge?

He kept an army in the field, made mistakes, guided an armed citizenship on to a very costly victory. Bloodily.

Just my thoughts.

Still reading.

Des

[andigger]

Is the Wilderness still wild? Phil B

Yes, but just barely.... its squarely in on the cutting edge of Washington sprawl.

Are you going to be here on vacation?

Andy

[PhilB]

Yes, tour of Civil War sites in Virginia etc., finishing at Gettysburg. Phil B

[Arnie]

Attrition

weakening by persistent attack: the gradual wearing away of morale and the powers of resistance by persistent attacks

Whether the supporters of Haig like it or not every battle fought by Haig up to and including Paechiondale ended up as battle of attrition because they were all kept on to long and were a series of attacks. All had sophisticated plans for a break through, these plans fell at the first line of German defence.

During all Haig's battles Chateris under played British Casualties whilst over playing German casualties and specifically under rating the amount of German reserves by as many as half a million men.

Two other factors that added to the attrition aspects; The poor selection of ground doomed the British to having to fight in the Ypres salient, that cost thousands of British casualties daily and as previously mentioned, trench raiding policy that cost the Battalions their very best men for no appreciable gain.

Of course Lloyd George was aware of Haig's policy of attrition and tried to soften the effects of it by denying Haig reinforcements. The Government had no control over the army in France. Haig had the King's ear, The doting loyalty of the press barons and the Masonic loyalty of the regular Officer Corps making his position unassailable.

Arnie

[GTS]

Of course Lloyd George was aware of Haig's policy of attrition and tried to soften the effects of it by denying Haig reinforcements. The Government had no control over the army in France. Haig had the King's ear, The doting loyalty of the press barons and the Masonic loyalty of the regular Officer Corps making his position unassailable

Sadly Lloyd George knew about as much about making war as I imagine Haig knew about Welsh mining villages. Witness Lloyd George's idolising of Nivelle, surely a general that would make Haig seem like a combination of Marlborough & Wellington !!!!!

[Guest Comsat Angel]

Ahem, Arnie, may I gently prompt you that, if anyone had the ears of the press barons, it was DLG, not Haig. Haig's position was not unassailable - French had been removed in 1915 for military failure. As others have pointed out, DLG was a consummate politician, but a military ignoramus. Had he got his way the BEF would have been fighting in Italy or Palestine in 1917, with results one can only too clearly imagine after the French mutinies/"collective indisciplines" of that year. I salute DLG's wish to avoid bloodshed and British casualties, but given that this was the biggest war in history, huge casualties were inevitable, unless you withdrew from the conflict entirely.

[AndyHollinger]

Yes, tour of Civil War sites in Virginia etc., finishing at Gettysburg.  Phil B

String to the Left Flank March!!!!

They're not Grant's battles ... they're Lees ... !

As long as your down there, take an afternoon at Antiedam ... it'll move you more than the Wilderness/Chancellorsville area ...

Take your mist machine and do it at dawn ... walk alone or with someone who respects the quiet ... think about both the ANV and the AoP ... two masses of men you can smell two miles away ... and how the earth is still rich with their blood ... I felt the same way when I walked around Ieper and Vimy with Tom Morgan and Lauren ... you can feel the dedication and the courage ...

To finish at Gettysburg ... again, get there before the crowds, tourist and reenactors ... sit at the foot of Lee's statue and gaze through the mist at Meade ... you can still walk the charge if you're willing to risk a ticket or something ... one guy should make it ... of course be silent at 2pm and don't bother with Longstreet the Republican's monument ... On little Round top you can look down at Devil's Den ... You can stand on the place the boys broke the line but couldn't go farther ...

Okay ... (drying eyes) where were we ... oh, yes ... Haig ... ALWAYS Haig ... Say what you will ... the man won. He had LG to contend with as well as the French as allies ... and the knowledge - much like Lee - you don't win wars defending your ground with an invader comfortable on your homeland ... While I wouldn't put Lee and Haig in the same paragraph, sentence or catagory ... both of them had the awful responsibility of victory or defeat ... it's people like Longstreet who "know better" but don't wear the commission of Supreme Command ...

ELP = Emerson, Lake and Palmer

[BottsGreys]

Yes, tour of Civil War sites in Virginia etc., finishing at Gettysburg. Phil B

Phil:

If you have time of your own in Gettysburg, some humble suggestions:

1) O'Rorke's on Steinwehr Avenue near Baltimore Street is a pretty good place to eat--has an outdoor terrace for people watching and has some English-style fare.

Named for Colonel Patrick O'Rorke, 140th New York Vols, KIA Little Round Top. When you see the monument to O'Rorke on Little round Top, you will notice the nose is shiney--this is from the tourists rubbing it, which will supposedly bring good luck.

2) The Pub up on the northwest corner of the town square is also pretty good -- usually some cute waitresses (students from Gettysburg College).

3) The Lincoln Diner (just down the street from The Pub) is also excellent--try an omelette.

4) If you want some sticker shock, visit The Horse Soldier Shop (near the Jennie Wade House) and see what Civil War collectables are going for.

5) At the intersection of Steinwehr Ave and Baltimore Street, there is a pretty good historical bookstore named Greystone's. It is in an multistory old house. Each room is dedicated to a different conflict/historical era.

6) If you are looking for a snack, there is a small, but excellent hot dog place called the Dog House, which is on Baltimore Street across from the Jennie Wade House. The owner, Davey Crockett, is a disc jockey on a radio station in York, PA.

7) The 2nd Day of Gettysburg, 11 Confederate brigades met and outfought 22 Union brigades, this fight primarily was Longstreet's First Corps and took place on the Confederate right, therefore, if possible, spend plenty of time on the 2nd Day's Peach Orchard, along the Emmitsburg Road, the Rose Farm, Stony Hill, and of course, The Wheat Field--along with the Cornfield at Antietam and the Mule Shoe at Spottsylvania, probably the most fought-over real estate in North America.

Regards,

Chris

[PhilB]

Thanks for the info, gents. One more question - Do I wear my CSA cap at sites in Va and my USA cap north of the Potomac? Phil B (Stuck in the JPGR era)

JPGR = John, Paul, George and Ringo!

[BlackSeptember1918]

Phil B ...or m13pgb if you prefer...must admit , I like your thought processes ...also like your pic's in pals pictures .

Good onya mate .

Phil

[Arnie]

Although well known as a 'thruster', Gough tried to persuade General Plummer and later Haig to close down the Passchendaele battle, both refused. For different reasons I suspect, Haig wanted some thing to show for the losses and Plummer just wanted to get out of the salient, he qualified this when latter on being sent to Italy he expressed how pleased he was to get away from the mud and the blood of the salient

I have read quite a few remarks in this forum ridiculing the French General Nivelle, especially when comparing his 1917 effort in Chemin des Dames. However it would seem that in the Passchendaele battle Haig recovered less ground, captured fewer prisoners, Machine Guns and artillery pieces than the despised Nivelle offensive and British sustained three times the casualties than did the French. If Nivelle offensive was a total failure, Using the term pyrrhic victory for Passchendaele would be rather a complement, would you not say?

[Robert Dunlop]

I cannot comment on the comparative statistics for the two offensives. A fundamental difference is that at the end of the Third Ypres campaign, the British dominated the Germans in the area. The British had captured the high ground surrounding Ypres and had control over the flat ground beyond. They held the initiative in all of the battles against the Germans. Apart from some minor gains, the Nivelle offensive left the Germans still dominant over the French in the Chemin des Dames region. In both cases, the Germans had time to prepare.

Cambrai demonstrated that Passchendaele was not a Pyrrhic victory for the British.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

Quite right, Robert - it`s whether the gain was worth the cost!

Phil

I guess this can only be answered by considering what the alternative might have been. Total War in the industrial age demands a high price for freedom from oppression. My grandfather survived the war so my family never experienced loss by death. But the psychological scars were there until he died. I visit Belgium on a regular basis. It gives me great pride to think that he played a small part in liberating Belgium and northern France.

Should it have happened? No - I wish it were possible to go back and bang the heads together of all those who chose war.

Given that it happened, was it worth it? Unquestionably yes, IMHO. Whenever I visit the war cemeteries, my first reaction is gratitude for what their sacrifice achieved.

Robert

[Arnie]

I cannot comment on the comparative statistics for the two offensives. A fundamental difference is that at the end of the Third Ypres campaign, the British dominated the Germans in the area. The British had captured the high ground surrounding Ypres and had control over the flat ground beyond.

The British did not has you say capture the whole of the salient. But in fact made the troops life in it a little more difficult By in parts enlarging the salient, some areas of the British Line could be fired on from all quarters. Capturing the Ridge at Messiness was sufficient. Although the height of Passchendaele village was only 50 feet above the Flanders plain it did dominate the British Line, as the british found later. Its a pity the British Generals had not thought of that when he ordered the army to dig in there in 1914- 15. Yes we captured most of the ridge but were to weak after the battle to achieve any advantage

Because the Germans had suffered less casualties they recovered first and a few months later drove the British off the salient with ease In fact the pyrrhic victory of Passchondaele caused a collapse in British morale almost as great as the French

It did however get rid of two of the 'donkeys' from GHQ. Kiggel went home sick after his one and only visit to the salient. Chariest was sacked a little later. Both went I suspect to save Haig's neck

All the influential newspaper barons were Haig supporters and this did not change until after Passchondale when Northcliffe/Harmsworth deserted him. Regarding French the Government had only a rubber stamp on his dismissal. It being engineered by Haig, Kitchener ( Although a minister, still a member of the military establishment) and the King.

Lloyd George only enjoyed the support of what the establishment called the gutter press.

[Robert Dunlop]

The British did not has you say capture the whole of the salient.

Apologies, but my use of the word 'dominate' was not meant to imply capture of the whole of the salient. Nor should it be taken to imply that the British in the salient were immune from German fire. So long as there was a salient, the British would always be subject to the disadvantages. The British held the initiative throughout the campaign. The Germans suffered severely, not just in numbers of casualties but in terms of their confidence. The German defensive tactics failed and no matter how they tried to vary them, the British were slowly but surely able to advance.

Yes we captured most of the ridge but were to weak after the battle to achieve any advantage

This is not strictly correct. No advantage could be gained because of the attrocious weather and conditions. The battle of Cambrai showed that the British Army was not finished at the end of Third Ypres.

Because the Germans had suffered less casualties they recovered first and a few months later drove the British off the salient with ease In fact the pyrrhic victory of Passchondaele caused a collapse in British morale almost as great as the French

I beg to differ on this. The Germans 'recovered' because they had beaten Russia and reinforcements were then available for the Western Front. They did not drive the British off the salient with ease. In the south, the German offensives bled severely to capture Messines, Wytschaete and Kemmel. Plumer withdrew from the salient to free up British troops for elsewhere. In fact, this was so skillfully done that the Germans seemed unware for some time that the front line was in fact held by small groups of rearguards.

It did however get rid of two of the 'donkeys' from GHQ. Kiggel went home sick after his one and only visit to the salient.  Chariest was sacked a little later. Both went I suspect to save Haig's neck

Do you mean Chateris? I don't know Kiggel at all. But Charteris went as a sop to political pressure. However, he remained in close contact with Haig and continued to contribute on intelligence issues at GHQ until he went off sick during the last months of the war.

Robert