Lieutenant General Edwin Alderson

[Will O'Brien]

I would be interested in the opinions of fellow forum users as to whether Lieutenant General Edwin Alderson was unfairly treated when replaced by Byng as Commander of the CEF.

From the 'light' reading I have done, I'll admit to having more than a bit of sympathy for Alderson who in part seemed a victim of political interference. However, I appreciate there are often 'two sides' to every story which is why I'd appreciate comments/opinions from others.

I'm at the point where it would seem Alderson's poor relationship with Sir Sam Hughes/Hughes' interference significantly contributed to his eventual removal. This interference appears to centre around two main themes; the political appointment of Officers to Alderson's staff & the forcing of sub standard equipment championed by Hughes onto the CEF, in particular the Ross Rifle. Is this a fair assessment?

I have read criticism of Alderson in relation to the co-ordination of his forces at Ypres in 1915, which I think is a little harsh. The Canadian action at Ypres was undertaken in very difficult circumstances with the first gas attacks & the withdrawal of the French Colonial units, requiring the Canadians to cover the gaps in the line, the best they could. There were undoubtedly problems, but I get the feeling these were exacerbated by poor staff (in particular appointments made by Sam Hughes – Garnet Hughes (his own son) & Richard Turner (no doubts about his personal bravery as a holder of the VC, but ill-equipped for senior command).

There is also criticism levelled at Alderson after the Canadian's performance at Festubert later in 1915, this revolved around high casualty rates & after St Eloi in 1916 when the Canadians failed to take objectives (again I believe this in part was down to Richard Turner's performance).

Are these criticisms justified & therefore a valid contributory factor to Alderson's removal, or not? Is it also true that when Alderson finally tried to remove several of the politically appointed Officers (including Richard Turner), pressure was applied to Haig to remove Alderson in return to 'continued Canadian support' (political interference at its most acute.)

[Jonathan Saunders]

I think it would be very hard to substantiate any blame on Alderson at Second Ypres. Arguably Alderson should share in the credit of the Canadians at Vimy - this was largely a Corps that had been assembled, trained and been inducted under Alderson.

Besides he was Royal West Kent

[armourersergeant]

I liken Alderson to Snow, if for no other reason than he was of similar age, had fought beside Snow in the Sudan 1884-85 in the mounted Infantry and was of the 'Old Guard'. had he survived I think he would have gone by 1918. That does not mean he deserved to go for 2nd Ypres or other actions, but I have often thought he was being outmoded by the advancing war.

Jonathan makes a valid point about the training and assembly under Alderson and he deserves some praise there but that does not make him a great battlefield commander. however his removal for my money was due to political concerns as you suggest above.

Regards

Arm

[nigelcave]

I liken Alderson to Snow, if for no other reason than he was of similar age, had fought beside Snow in the Sudan 1884-85 in the mounted Infantry and was of the 'Old Guard'. had he survived I think he would have gone by 1918. That does not mean he deserved to go for 2nd Ypres or other actions, but I have often thought he was being outmoded by the advancing war.

Jonathan makes a valid point about the training and assembly under Alderson and he deserves some praise there but that does not make him a great battlefield commander. however his removal for my money was due to political concerns as you suggest above.

Regards

Arm

Alderson's removal was essentially political - see Nicholson's rather diplomatic account (Ross Rifle, San Hughes etc); then the one who should have gone (re Mont St Eloi) was Turner VC - but he was Canadian and politics came into that one as well. It is worth looking at Haldane's papers (in Scotland) - he wrote a considerable diary and he writes fairly explosively about the Canadians losing the ground his division had fought so hard to gain. The area was such a mess that there is no wonder there was confusion about who was occupying what.

[Will O'Brien]

Many thanks for your thoughts chaps. Would agree with Jon's comments that Alderson should take some credit for the Canadian successes post his removal.

Arm, your words 'he deserves some praise there but that does not make him a great battlefield commander' would indicate that you don't rate him in this capacity. For me, I'm unsure whether he was ever presented with the right opportunity to shine given the elements that conspired against him (politics/poor staff/poor equipment/difficult battlefield situations).

[armourersergeant]

Will,

I see nothing in his WW1 career to assume that he would have made a good Corps commander during 1917 and especially 1918. Perhaps some of that is down to not having the opportunity. He certainly did not have an enviable position but then Byng (not my favourite General) had a better tenure, thus may have dealt with these political issues better (?). (did Byng benefit from ground work laid down by Alderson?)

2nd Ypres however is not a sound basis on which to judge his command. If we did then we would have to judge Currie whose performance here was poor/ill-judged in some areas and we can see how he turned out. It was a confusing time and know one really comes out of 2nd Ypres with flying colours.

It is worth noting that many of those obstacles you mention, 'politics/poor staff/poor equipment/difficult battlefield situations' were faced by many throughout the war and they over came those, at least to some degree. I return again to him being of the elk of T D O Snow, Fergusson, Pulteney, Woolcombe etc. All really by 1918 showing a widening gap of corps command, when others, who had started lower down the ladder in 1914, Maxse, Currie, Monash, Shute, Jacob and so forth were proving more adaptable.

One caveat to all this, I am judging this on a passing knowledge of Alderson, through peripheral attachment to my research with T D O Snow. I will consider more the work he did in 'creating' the Candian Corps and how he should be considered as a battlefield commander.

Regards

Arm

[Will O'Brien]

Arm

Thanks for your further comments. It may be the case you are right & I have nothing up my sleeve which proves Alderson would have been a 'good' Corps Commander. If I'm totally honest, my sympathy for Alderson is driven in part for my increasing dislike of Sam Hughes (the more I read of him, the less there is to like)

[armourersergeant]

If I'm totally honest, my sympathy for Alderson is driven in part for my increasing dislike of Sam Hughes (the more I read of him, the less there is to like)

No argument there.

[adk46canada]

Will,

I see nothing in his WW1 career to assume that he would have made a good Corps commander during 1917 and especially 1918. Perhaps some of that is down to not having the opportunity. He certainly did not have an enviable position but then Byng (not my favourite General) had a better tenure, thus may have dealt with these political issues better (?). (did Byng benefit from ground work laid down by Alderson?)

2nd Ypres however is not a sound basis on which to judge his command. If we did then we would have to judge Currie whose performance here was poor/ill-judged in some areas and we can see how he turned out. It was a confusing time and know one really comes out of 2nd Ypres with flying colours.

It is worth noting that many of those obstacles you mention, 'politics/poor staff/poor equipment/difficult battlefield situations' were faced by many throughout the war and they over came those, at least to some degree. I return again to him being of the elk of T D O Snow, Fergusson, Pulteney, Woolcombe etc. All really by 1918 showing a widening gap of corps command, when others, who had started lower down the ladder in 1914, Maxse, Currie, Monash, Shute, Jacob and so forth were proving more adaptable.

One caveat to all this, I am judging this on a passing knowledge of Alderson, through peripheral attachment to my research with T D O Snow. I will consider more the work he did in 'creating' the Candian Corps and how he should be considered as a battlefield commander.

Regards

Arm

Certainly Alderson was handicapped by a difficult situation working with the Canadian authorities, but it is very difficult to make the case that he was really cut out to be a Corps commander. His performance at Second Ypres was at best mediocre, like all the senior Canadian commanders but the difference between Alderson and Currie and to a certain extent Turner was he did not seem to improve from battle to battle. Currie's and Turner's performance at Festubert was an improvement over their conduct at Ypres, while the same lack of grip existed at Festubert that Alderson displayed during Second Ypres.

The strongest argument against Alderson can be seen in the actions and lack of respect shown by GHQ in relation to its different reactions to the battle of St. Eloi, Alderson's removal and the Battle of Mount Sorrel. At St. Eloi the British and Canadian divisions were fighting under German superiority in artillery firepower. The Germans had more guns, better observation and more shells and Alderson's request for more firepower was turned down, whereas at Mount Sorrel, Byng requested and received ample artillery reinforcements. All of which suggests a greater confidence in Byng and willingness to listen to his requests. Alderson's removal and subsequent shuffling off to be an Inspector-General suggests Haig was not that interested in keeping Alderson around. It was obvious that the position Alderson was being moved to was a sinecure, obvious to everyone except Alderson. If Alderson was respected by Haig, I believe he could of been shuffled to a more meaningful position or be brought back to command a different Corps once his Inspector-General role ended in September 1916.

Byng was a far stronger and more capable commander than Alderson and made the Corps. Reading the accounts of officers and contemporary documents it is clear that Byng played a critical role in improving the Corps and while Alderson was liked as a gentleman he was clearly not respected to the same degree as was Byng.

As to Haldane, his memoirs are selective in their treatment of certain issues. His claim that he handed over a consolidated line to the Canadians at St. Eloi is an outright falsehood. His division left the line to the Canadians in appalling order. His division had not evacuated its wounded or dead and had not been able to dig trenches in the terrible mud and water conditions. A staff officer left behind to guide the Canadians into position got lost repeatedly in trying to find his way in the front line. The 3rd British Division was reduced to effectively two brigades as one of the brigades was crippled by over a 1000 cases of trench foot - a sure sign of poor management in 1916. Haldane was on Haig's hit list of commanders that should be replaced but somehow he managed to dodge the bullet.

[armourersergeant]

Haldane was on Haig's hit list of commanders that should be replaced but somehow he managed to dodge the bullet.

Thanks for that piece, it is much as I would think, even allowing for my belief that Byng was a Teflon commander, he was still better at the job than Alderson.

On your last bit, can you cite me a reference to this claim as it interests me as I have not seen evidence of this and would like to follow this up as he is very critical of T D O Snow and I would like to compare reasoning etc.

Regards

Arm