Haig's achievement.

[Old Tom]

Phil, You may be correct. Like many, my knowledge of the French army's part in the war is limited. I thought I reflected the views of authors I have read. Albeit they were writting about the BEF. From these I have the impression that Foch was well satisfied with the BEF's contribution. However may I stress that my point was that it was Haig who had brought the BEF to the standard which enabled it to win the 100 days battles, and it was that for which he deserves credit.

Old Tom

[phil andrade]

may I stress that my point was that it was Haig who had brought the BEF to the standard which enabled it to win the 100 days battles, and it was that for which he deserves credit.

Old Tom

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

As for the deterioration in French fighting effectiveness - which Haig made so much of throughout the war - a couple of entries from his diary are illuminating :

Augsust 29, 1918 The French attack did not progress to-day. Very few French Divisions are said to be in good heart now, but most are " war weary".

October 17, 1918 FRENCH ARMY : worn out and has not been fighting latterly. It has been freely said that the " war is over " and " we don't wish to lose our lives now that peace is in sight."

It is a fact that in the last campaign, the British armies reported more German prisoners than the French and American armies combined.

Against this, it is also a fact that the German archives, which broke down their losses on the Western Front to those sustained against the British and those against the Franco - Belgian armies, reveal that from July to late October 1918, it was the French who inflicted the heavier casualties.

This is hard to reconcile with Haig's comments.

Editing : It's important to stress - and this certainly impinges on our discussion about Haig's effectiveness on the defensive - that the Germans admitted, by the source that I've cited above, that in the period March to June 1918 their casualties were very appreciably heavier against the British than the French, not only absolutely, but also in terms of the exchange ratio.

Phil (PJA)

[Old Tom]

Phil,

You may well be correct. I like many, I suspect, do not know much about the operations of the French army. I believe I was reflecting the views of authors that I have read, albeit Brits writting about the BEF. However, may I stress that my point was not intended to praise Haig for the 100 days battles but to suggest that more credit was due to him for his work supervising the growth of the BEF, its training and hence its abiltiy to undertake those battles.

Old Tom

[Wexflyer]

As a proponent of winning wars by taking the offensive, Haig, as C-i-C, secured the greatest victory ever gained by British arms in land warfare.

I wonder if his contribution in the defensive fighting of the autumn of 1914, when he was Corps Commander, and in the ordeal of the spring of 1918, has been given its due.

Phil (PJA)

This line of argument just cries out for the famous comment about Haig:

That FM Haig would go down in history as the most successful Scottish soldier ever, having succeeded in killing a record number of English.

[Kitchener's Bugle]

It's a bit of a mixed bag from Haig, afterall he did have to put his "final" signature to all of thiose death warrants but on the other hand he was instrumental in forming the Royal Army Dental Corps!.

[Crunchy]

This line of argument just cries out for the famous comment about Haig:

That FM Haig would go down in history as the most successful Scottish soldier ever, having succeeded in killing a record number of English.

What an inane comment. I guess the Germans had nothing to do with it.

[Wexflyer]

What an inane comment. I guess the Germans had nothing to do with it.

There are several points, which are pretty obvious.

[George Armstrong Custer]

There are several points, which are pretty obvious.

This is the kind of wilful ignorance for which, given the available literature today, there is no longer any excuse, and which has led me to no longer waste my time posting anything grounded in sustainable fact here. Rational debate with such mindsets is not possible. The death warrants/dental corps quip isn't much better - as Chris says, inanity masquerading as 'cleverness' in the minds of the posters.

[Guest]

" Haig won the war "

Mike

[phil andrade]

Thanks for that, Mike. It's good to get testimony from generals from other nations.

An idle thought, perhaps, but since we're being reminded of the seventieth anniversary of Stalingrad, I was wondering whether there was a Soviet - or Russian - perspective on the achievements of Haig.

It would be interesting to speculate as to what Zhukov might have thought of him.

Perhaps Soviet officers were too frightened to express opinions.

British officers are encouraged to make critical appreciation in the study of military history, and I wonder whether their Russian counterparts are expected to do the same. If so, does Haig get a mention ?

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Big Chief Haig. Him man of peace Click

Mike

[Chris_Baker]

Regarding posts from Wexflyer and Kitchener's Bugle above. One of the reasons this forum has been so successful over the years is that it is used as a platform for serious, well argued, research and history. Those two posts are little more than trolling and have no place in a grown-up forum. I ask the two posters concerned and the moderators of this forum to ensure that future discussion leaves such nonsense behind. If you want to play and have fun on this forum, Skindles is the place to do it..

[bruce]

It seems to me, and this is just my simple opinion based upon a limited knowledge, that Haig has been critixised in some quarters for a number of reasons:-

1. Leaving Smith-Dorien to face the Germans at Le Cateau

2. Being obsessed with cavalry. He was a cavalryman, but then, how else was expoitation of a possible break-through to be exploited?

3. Too far away from the front. Where else should a commander be?

4. Wasteful of lives in prolonging attacks. This may be true of the latter stages of the Somme in 16 and maybe also 3rd Ypres in 17.

5. Incoherent in speech. Maybe, but orders were written.

6. Unwillingness to embrace new technology....as in use of aircraft in 14? Use of tanks as soon as available in 16?

In all the criticisms I have read about Haig, nobody has yet come up with alternatives to what he did. I await such suggestions with interest.

Finally.....and probably most importantly.....the changes in the British army which he commanded were huge, and helped to ensure that the British were on the winning side.

Am I being a bit simplistic? What else have I missed out?

Bruce

[Crunchy]

The unwillingness to embrace technology is a myth. One just has to read his diaries to see his interest in new technologies, as far back as the Sudan War with regard to machine guns, and he did embrace tanks when he first saw the trials in the UK, putting in an immediate order for several hundred. George wrote an excellent, well researched piece on this in another forum/thread, which I cannot find. Perhaps he might give us the link, or repost it here.

Many of the criticisms are indeed simplistic. Leaving Smith-Dorien behind at Le Cateau, ignores the fact Smith-Dorien made the decision to fight and stand at the last minute when he realised the Germans were so close, and he would not be able to break contact. Haig was carrying out French's orders to withdraw, and IIRC was unaware of II Corps' stand. Perhaps someone with better knowledge, such as Jack Sheldon, can clarify this, but I don't think it was as simple as leaving Smith-Dorien to his fate. War is never as simple as some people seem to think. It is chaotic, and one never has the full information. One who waits for certainty on the battlefield waits forever.

Regards

Chris

[Crunchy]

Regarding posts from Wexflyer and Kitchener's Bugle above. One of the reasons this forum has been so successful over the years is that it is used as a platform for serious, well argued, research and history. Those two posts are little more than trolling and have no place in a grown-up forum. I ask the two posters concerned and the moderators of this forum to ensure that future discussion leaves such nonsense behind. If you want to play and have fun on this forum, Skindles is the place to do it..

Seconded

[Guest]

Not sure exactly right place to post this, but as good a Haig thread as any.

From Here

Nice photograph of the man Click

Mike

[keithjk]

Regarding posts from Wexflyer and Kitchener's Bugle above. One of the reasons this forum has been so successful over the years is that it is used as a platform for serious, well argued, research and history. Those two posts are little more than trolling and have no place in a grown-up forum. I ask the two posters concerned and the moderators of this forum to ensure that future discussion leaves such nonsense behind. If you want to play and have fun on this forum, Skindles is the place to do it..

Rather harsh methinks Chris. I have learnt an awful lot from the well-reasoned and researched posts in this Forum, but I also enjoy the occasional light-hearted quip.

After all, judging from the numerous memoirs I have read, one thing that shines out about the British soldier (and, I am sure, his French, German, US etc. counterparts) is their sense of humour in the most dire of circumstances. It would be a shame if we were not allowed to exhibit that same sense of humour as part of our remembrance.

‘All work and no play ………’

Keith

[Chris_Baker]

I do not disagree but do not believe the two posts I referred to were anything but trolling.

[Wexflyer]

I do not disagree but do not believe the two posts I referred to were anything but trolling.

In which case, with respect, you are wrong. Haig had many achievements, but the key point is that they are not all positive achievements by any means. His positive achievements are counterbalanced (more than counterbalance IMHO) by the fact that they came at the price of over a million casualties, with what was it, 400,000+ dead? It is not realistically possible to just focus on his "positive" achievements and ignore the other side of the ledger, or if you do, it is unhistorical. Consequently, I think the comments by "Kitchener's bugle" myself are an expected reaction to an attempt to have a one-sided discussion of what Haig accomplished - the two-sided nature of Haig's accomplishments is perfectly captured by the famous quip about him being the most successful Scottish soldier ever, and as such is well suited to this thread. If that is trolling, then I will not be around here long.

[ulsterlad2]

It's a bit of a mixed bag from Haig, afterall he did have to put his "final" signature to all of thiose death warrants but on the other hand he was instrumental in forming the Royal Army Dental Corps!.

He refused to sign the death warrant on over 90% of cases where military courts had passed death sentences. I think that's a better example of Haig's bag than the Dental Corps.

[squirrel]

It seems to me, and this is just my simple opinion based upon a limited knowledge, that Haig has been critixised in some quarters for a number of reasons:-

1. Leaving Smith-Dorien to face the Germans at Le Cateau

2. Being obsessed with cavalry. He was a cavalryman, but then, how else was expoitation of a possible break-through to be exploited?

3. Too far away from the front. Where else should a commander be?

4. Wasteful of lives in prolonging attacks. This may be true of the latter stages of the Somme in 16 and maybe also 3rd Ypres in 17.

5. Incoherent in speech. Maybe, but orders were written.

6. Unwillingness to embrace new technology....as in use of aircraft in 14? Use of tanks as soon as available in 16?

In all the criticisms I have read about Haig, nobody has yet come up with alternatives to what he did. I await such suggestions with interest.

Finally.....and probably most importantly.....the changes in the British army which he commanded were huge, and helped to ensure that the British were on the winning side.

Am I being a bit simplistic? What else have I missed out?

Bruce

I'd say concise rather than simplistic.

[phil andrade]

Haig's reputation is still very much in need of rescue. That this is so is remarkable, given the weight of scholarship that has been deployed in his defence. There must be a huge cultural aversion to the man and what he is supposed to represent, which I suspect has its provenance in the 1960s . It is a " British " thing.

Phil (PJA)

[Crunchy]

Haig had many achievements, but the key point is that they are not all positive achievements by any means. His positive achievements are counterbalanced (more than counterbalance IMHO) by the fact that they came at the price of over a million casualties, with what was it, 400,000+ dead? It is not realistically possible to just focus on his "positive" achievements and ignore the other side of the ledger,

Firstly, the comments we have made in response to your first post are not about rejecting negative comments about Haig. There have been many two sided threads of debate on Haig on this forum, but much of the argument is based on logic, well reasoned argument, demonstrating an understanding of the complex issues, wide reading and good research.

I note you have just joined the forum and we welcome new views, but views that are mature and have something of substance to add, not old, hackneyed, flippant quips that add nothing to the discussion, and which quite frankly are childish on a forum of this nature, and then expect them to accepted as mature debate.

Are you are suggesting Haig was directly responsible for all British deaths, because that is the import of your last post? If so, then that is a very simplistic view. The issues of the appalling death rolls are not simply limited to the British, and cannot be laid directly at Haig’s feet - that is a view that has long been rejected by those who have taken the time to read widely on the subject, including the many new books coming out based on thorough research of the primary sources. Perhaps the following threads might be useful

http://1914-1918.inv...167305&hl=+haig A recent thread on Haig Books. You will have to read into the second page of posts for views on Haig and British deaths

http://1914-1918.inv...pic=91828&st=25 This is a particularly good thread "The Road to a Revisionist Damascus" in Classic Threads

Regards

Chris

[Kitchener's Bugle]

He refused to sign the death warrant on over 90% of cases where military courts had passed death sentences. I think that's a better example of Haig's bag than the Dental Corps.

Although the book Shot at Dawn (1983), which began the campaign for pardons, says that it is “quite incorrect” to hold Haig solely responsible, as he was part of a legal process, by the late 1990s Haig was perhaps best known to the general public because of publicity which implied him to be a brutal disciplinarian – this was not the view of many of his contemporaries. Of the 3,080 men sentenced to death in all theatres, 346 men were actually executed, the vast majority of these (266) for desertion, the next largest reasons for execution being murder (37 - these men would probably have been hanged under civilian law at the time) and cowardice (18). Just over 250 of the executions took place during Haig's time as Commander-in-Chief, but only executed mens’ records survive, so it is hard to comment on the reasons why men were reprieved. Nevertheless men who had been suffering from Shell Shock and other disorders were still executed and it was Haig who had the final decision.

During the war, Haig suffered from toothache and sent for a Parisian dentist. Consequently, within months the army had hired a dozen dentists and, by the end of the war, there were 831. This led to the formation of the Royal Army Dental Corps in 1921.

Both of these points demonstrate two quite different perspectives on his character and his behaviour. Both however also state the same thing - that as C-in-C he wielded an extraordinary amount of power over the men's lives that he commanded.

I am sorry if there are those here who think that these points are not relevant or that this is Trolling, it is not - I think that you need to lighten up, or perhaps I have misunderstood and that this forum is meant only as means for intellectual sword fencing.

[Wexflyer]

Firstly, the comments we have made in response to your first post are not about rejecting negative comments about Haig. There have been many two sided threads of debate on Haig on this forum, but much of the argument is based on logic, well reasoned argument, demonstrating an understanding of the complex issues, wide reading and good research.

I note you have just joined the forum and we welcome new views, but views that are mature and have something of substance to add, not old, hackneyed, flippant quips that add nothing to the discussion, and which quite frankly are childish on a forum of this nature, and then expect them to accepted as mature debate.

While it is true that I just joined the forum, that does not mean that I am not well read or unacquainted with good research. With over forty years of interest in this subject area and as an author of over 150 refereed journal articles, I think I know more than most about both. To get back to the point at hand - I stand by my "old, hackneyed, flippant quip" as concisely capturing the very-much dual-sided nature of Haig's "accomplishments".

Are you are suggesting Haig was directly responsible for all British deaths, because that is the import of your last post? If so, then that is a very simplistic view. The issues of the appalling death rolls are not simply limited to the British, and cannot be laid directly at Haig’s feet - that is a view that has long been rejected by those who have taken the time to read widely on the subject, including the many new books coming out based on thorough research of the primary sources. Perhaps the following threads might be useful

http://1914-1918.inv...167305&hl= haig A recent thread on Haig Books. You will have to read into the second page of posts for views on Haig and British deaths

http://1914-1918.inv...pic=91828&st=25 This is a particularly good thread "The Road to a Revisionist Damascus" in Classic Threads

Regards

Chris

I think it is simplistic to think that Haig has been somehow exonerated by recent research. Niall Ferguson, one of the foremost historians of his generation, is most certainly not a fan, and neither am I.