The Calais Conference

[PhilB]

Haig & Robertson claimed to have been insulted by the demands of the conference for French overall command at Arras. Was that a reasonable reaction?

[Chris_Baker]

100%, in my view. Nothing wrong with moving to a unified Allied command, but not by the back door and skulduggery.

[squirrel]

Agreed.

[stevem49]

Politics interferring with Army Command (as usual)

sm

[PhilB]

100%, in my view. Nothing wrong with moving to a unified Allied command, but not by the back door and skulduggery.

Whilst one can understand the soldiers` annoyance, aren`t the manoeuvres of the politicians, in theory, of no concern to the generals?

[Chris_Baker]

What do you think?

[PhilB]

I think the generals probably overreacted at having their feathers ruffled and having been treated in a way they perceived to be lacking in the respect they deserved. At the same time, the politicians used shifty manoeuvres to catch the generals off balance. They also seemed to have conspired with the French generals to achieve their ends. So the British generals had a case but not quite as strong as they made out. But, of course, their reaction may have been purposely exaggerated to achieve their own aims.

Perhaps those members who are more widely read can correct these ideas?

[squirrel]

Had you been CIC and/or CIGS with, to all intents and purposes, an independent command and gone in to a meeting to find that you had been subordinated to a French General, junior in rank and experience to yourself, with no forewarning or discussion, for a major offensive, I think you may have found that your feathers had been more than ruffled.

[TonyE]

Absolutely agree.

It was a typical move by the Welsh Wizard to get at Haig and the army command in general.

Regards

TonyE

[PhilB]

It was certainly a shifty move by DLlG. Looked at from the politicians` side, could they have achieved unified command, albeit on a temporary basis, by "normal" methods and within the time frame envisaged? That question might have been more interesting if Nivelle hadn`t failed so badly, which makes DLlG`s efforts look worse.

[squirrel]

Given Haig's suggestion and compliance for a unified command later in the war I would say yes.

[Petroc]

Wasn't Lloyd George's original plan to extend the subordination of the British High Command to the French beyond the Nivelle/Arras offensives?

Anyway, I certainly think that there were more fundamental issues at stake than the ruffelling of a few feathers. Although a unified command structure was introduced in 1918, the fact is that at the time of the conference the British Army was an independent force working in close cooperation with its French and Belgian allies as part of a coaltion. By agreeing to a subordination of the BEF to French authority Lloyd George demonstrated that he had little or no confidence in the abilities of his most senior commanders. If that was the case, he should have invoked his Prime Ministerial powers and sacked them; that he did not is both an indication of the fact that there were no really viable candidates to replace the CIGS and CinC and that he did not want to risk losing public and military support by doing so.

Not only did his actions further sour politico-military relations, but they hardly enhanced the image of a nation united in its wartime exertions.

Andy

[PhilB]

Wasn't Lloyd George's original plan to extend the subordination of the British High Command to the French beyond the Nivelle/Arras offensives?

Andy

I believe so. At what stage in the war did unification of command become the correct military move?