Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Haig's achievement.


phil andrade

Recommended Posts

All large battles are bloody and involve heavy casualties, including most of those fought on the Western and Eastern fronts by all of the combatants, not just those Haig fought. The whole denigration of Haig seems to be based on the ludicrous perception that his were an anomaly.

Regards

Chris

I think some of the fuel for this thread was the notion that he didn't care - the most ludicrous assumption of all.

Suddery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that the story of the 'Old Contemptibles' has been subject to a degree of mythologising in the British historiography, but against that there is a danger that some historians today are inclined to go beyond factual corrective and write the performance of the old army off almost entirely. However, despite the fact that its GHQ in particular didn't always have a grip, it is nonetheless a fact that, under its two Corps commanders, the tiny BEF in 1914 successfully carried out one of the most difficult operations in war - a withdrawal whilst in contact with and under fire from the enemy. The fact that this was aided by the ineptitude of the German command merely emphasises the role of the 'fortunes of war' in all military endeavours. And after the Marne, of course, the Old Army went on, in conjunction with French forces, to mount a successful defense against the invader at First Ypres.

On the comparison between modern training exercises and attitudes in war when soldiers are being killed by enemy action, I'd make this observation. Whether or not 'serious injury or death' happens in 'most' such exercises, the obvious difference is that any injuries or deaths in a peacetime training exercise are as a result of chance accidents. Any fatalities, then, however regrettable, are unintentional and cannot be foreseen as inevitable. In the Great War, however, a C-in-C ordering an operation on the vast scale prevalent in attritional industrialised war knew that it was guaranteed that men under his command would lose their lives, often in large numbers, at the hands of an enemy whose sole intention was to kill as many of them as possible. If a C-in-C cannot bring himself to promulgate the war because of such guaranteed losses, then he must say so to his political masters and either resign or be sacked and be replaced by someone who will. Hence Trenchard's reflection which I posted earlier:

"[W]hat is hard to find is the men for responsible positions who will fight and order others to fight and get killed. It is the hardest thing in life. Douglas Haig once told me it was the greatest strain of any man always to be planning how others were to get killed. How very true it is."

GACuster has done many hard yards to get this across to even the most dense of us and you need thick skin in that mincer

You should see my Water Carrier Pete Hart in his classic hand-on-hip pose, Roger – that’s real mincing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: it's not so much Haig's reputational rehabilitation that is at stake, but that of the Great War itself.

You are getting into hand-wringing mode again, PJA, and that always leads to confusing the issues. Your thread is, ostensibly, an examination of ‘Haig’s Achievement.’ Having conceded that "Haig’s achievements be properly acknowledged", however, you go on to state that doing so may lead us to “play down the intensity and bloodiness of the battles he fought.” As Crunchy has rightly pointed out in response:

“All large battles are bloody and involve heavy casualties, including most of those fought on the Western and Eastern fronts by all of the combatants, not just those Haig fought. The whole denigration of Haig seems to be based on the ludicrous perception that his were an anomaly.”

Your conflation of Haig with bloody battles, as if the cost in blood was uniquely paid by the armies under Haig’s command, is, of course, specious. In similar vein, you write

“Above all - and this has been extant on this thread - we are reminded of the twenty million or so dead of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, and advised to tone down our perception of the Great War's bloodiness.”

I introduced on this thread the losses of the Soviet Union in defeating the main German army in the field in the Second World War. Perhaps you can point to where I advised it should be used to “tone down our perception of the Great War’s bloodiness”? As I made specifically clear – and which I reiterated in a second post for the benefit of KB – my point in referencing the cost to Russia in WWII was to emphasise that you do not remove the main German army in the field from where it wishes to be without paying a heavy price for doing so. That the Soviet people paid an even higher price for doing so in 1941-45 than the British in 1914-18 is a simple statement of fact, and does not diminish one sacrifice in comparison to the other. You say of British casualties in the Great War that “They were an anomaly in terms of British experience - on that we must all agree, surely.” Well, yes – but so what? What point are you making – that Britain should have therefore kept out and let Germany do what she wished? You could argue that – but you’d be arguing about political, not military decisions.

In fact, you now seem to be moving the goalposts of this discussion away from Haig to some hand-wringing angst over the cost of Britain’s participation in the Great War per se – “it's not so much Haig's reputational rehabilitation that is at stake, but that of the Great War itself.” Well, you can certainly argue – as some controversy-courting historians who should know better have – that Britain should have maintained a policy of ‘splendid isolation’ from European imbroglios in 1914, but I’d suggest that that ought to be a separate thread. But as I still suffer the odd twinge of guilt from having supposedly reduced you to a state of shock by my vicious use of the Payloresque ‘oh’ some time ago, I’ll set out here some points which you might want to consider before beginning such a thread.

John Charmley has gained publicity for his work by pretending that Britain could have stood idly on the sidelines in 1914. His ‘Splendid Isolation: Britain and the Balance of Power 1874 - 1914’, (1999) pp 1 – 2, begins as follows:

“This book departs from the view [….] that the British involvement in the war of 1914 was inevitable; it dissents, by implication, from the view that British participation was desirable. Just before this book begins in 1874, the Germans had defeated the French. The skies had not fallen in and civilisation had not ended; nor would it have done in 1914 had the Germans once more defeated the French.”

Charmley is spouting attention-grabbing nonsense, of course. The Germany of Wilhelm II in 1914 was not that of the embryonic European power of Wilhelm I under Bismarck’s pilotage. The key difference from Britain’s perspective between 1871 and 1914 was the existence of the German High Seas Fleet. Coupled with German ambitions under Wilhelm II for a place on the world stage, this rendered Britain’s 19th-century policy of ‘splendid isolation’ no longer tenable. Had Britain stood aside and let France fall in 1914, as she had in 1870/1, she would have acting against her own national interests by allowing German naval access to ports in the Channel and on the French Atlantic seaboard – not to mention the acquisition of the French Fleet. As for what life would have been like in a Europe – and perhaps wider world – under the hegemony of Imperial Germany, one only has to read academic studies of what life was like in territories they did occupy during the war in works such as Horne and Kramer’s 2001 ‘German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial’. . Add German disregard for the integrity of neutral states in pursuance of its military goals, and arguments for British non-intervention in 1914 are exposed as entirely specious.

Michael Howard, in his Introduction to an otherwise mediocre anthology in 2001, best encapsulates why the national mood in Britain was prepared to pay the price to stop Germany. I think I’ve quoted it before on this forum, but repetition seems to be the name of the game with some here:

“Nevertheless the question remains: was it all worth it? If the cost of victory was so heavy, would it not have been better if Imperial Germany had been allowed to win the war, whether by acknowledging defeat in 1914 or accepting her peace terms two years later? Some historians have pointed out that the plans put forward by German economists in 1916 for a Mitteleuropa, an integrated European economy monitored from Berlin, were little different from the European Union that eventually came into being, monitored from Brussels. If only European statesmen had been more flexible and their generals less stubborn, might not this solution have come about half a century sooner and Europe, instead of destroying itself and slaughtering a generation of its young men, have emerged as a Great Power in its own right, even if one under German leadership?

Perhaps. But if the Germany of 1916 was not that of Adolf Hitler, neither was she that of Konrad Adenauer. Power was contested between an authoritarian, militaristic and increasingly proto-fascistic right wing and a liberal-socialistic left, and every military success strengthened the hand of the former. Victory in war would have established their dominance, not only in Germany, but over Europe as a whole, and with it their determination to destroy Britain’s naval supremacy and to reduce her to the status of a second-rate power as they had done to France in 1871. That, at least, was the perception in Britain itself, which was why, for better or worse, neither elite nor popular opinion in Britain across the political spectrum for a moment considered defeat to be an option. Reserves of national pride, built up over generations, were not yet exhausted. Politicians and generals were reviled for the way in which they conducted the war, but not for fighting it at all.”

[Michael Howard, ‘A Part of History: Aspects of the British Experience of the First World War’, (2008) p. xx]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are getting into hand-wringing mode again, PJA, and that always leads to confusing the issues. Your thread is, ostensibly, an examination of ‘Haig’s Achievement.’ Having conceded that "Haig’s achievements be properly acknowledged", you go on to state that doing so may lead us to “play down the intensity and bloodiness of the battles he fought.” Your conflation of Haig with bloody battles, as if the cost in blood was uniquely paid by the armies under Haig’s command, is, of course, specious. In similar vein, you write

“Above all - and this has been extant on this thread - we are reminded of the twenty million or so dead of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, and advised to tone down our perception of the Great War's bloodiness.”

I introduced on this thread the losses of the Soviet Union in defeating the main German army in the field in the Second World War. Perhaps you can point to where I advised it should be used to “tone down our perception of the Great War’s bloodiness”?

George,

You italicised and highlighted the "he" in the opening quote : I did not. You're taking liberties, again.

The allusion to the Soviet losses 1941-45 is used by Terraine to encourage people to play down their perceptions of the bloodiness of the Great War. I never stated that you had done so.

And now, if you are about to hit me with an "oh", I'll pick up the guantlet on some of the things you've written in the rest of your post.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You italicised and highlighted the "he" in the opening quote : I did not. You're taking liberties, again."

Even for you, that's rather desperate, PJA. As your original post is sitting there for all to see, it's clear that the emphasis is mine - simply to highlight your casual conflation of Haig with bloody battles, which is the point I then went on to make. Rest assured I shall keep in mind to put 'my italics' next time - then you'll have to think of a proper response.

"The allusion to the Soviet losses 1941-45 is used by Terraine to encourage people to play down their perceptions of the bloodiness of the Great War. I never stated that you had done so."

Yes, but you weren't referring to Terraine, but to what "has been extant on this thread" in regard to Soviet casualties.

Feel free to pick up any gauntlet you like, if you've anything of substance to say on it. As it is, I see I'm back to wasting my time here......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While everyone is asleep up there in the Northern hemisphere…

I am not sure that the Great War needs rehabilitation. Like any tragedy is has moments of horror and triumph that altogether hold our fascination, wonder and imagination.

The tread is about Haig though.

FM Haig on the other hand gets full blame for the tragedy, and those that criticise him, often ignore the triumph. The triumph of Haig however was not just the battlefield – it was the organisation, infrastructure and construction of an entire army from citizens.

Age shall not weary them or the years condemn

That is put aside when people speak about Haig, he is unfairly made the villian like we would never speak of any others. imagine a man shot for desertion being 100 years later being criticised and rounded on from the warm comfort of arm chairs - the tread would be shut down.

so i wonder:

We as British and colonies have a tendency to glory in defeat, here in NZ and Australia we glory in Gallipoli we are transfixed by Passchendaele, Fromelles. The British seem to be transfixed by the Somme. All amazing stories in there own right. But try and find a book on NZs triumph at Messines and you’ll struggle too get more than a passage in general histories. The 100 days to victory only recently starting to be looked at here in NZ.

The question is I wonder is would Haig be a hero if we had lost the war?

Would we treat him like Germany; Hindenburg?

Cheers Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, I wish I had stayed in bed. There is no need for personal hostilities.

if you don't like what someone has posted, criticise the post not the person. That way it remains possible to maintain a discussion.

Once you take aim at the person, then the thread spirals quickly out of control. I have taken out a few posts which made no contribution to the subject matter whatsoever.

Keith Roberts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think you can compare a post WW1 Europe dominated by Germany to the current EU.

For all its faults no single country can completly dominate the EU. One reason for the relative stability of the EU is that the Trauma of two world wars as made us europeans aware of the consequenses of attempting to solve our differences by war. I dont think that this lesson would have been learned post a German victory in WW1 and sooner or later the UK and probably the USA would have gone to war to safeguard the Empire in the case of the UK and the ability to maintain international trade in the case of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, I wish I had stayed in bed.

It's okay Keith you can do what OOr Wullie did and get out the other side. All will be well then.

H.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is I wonder is would Haig be a hero if we had lost the war?

Would we treat him like Germany; Hindenburg?

Cheers Roger

What a thought, Roger !

You have a point. I think.

Look at the way R.E.Lee was idolised ( and still is) in the South after the Civil War. A " Lost Cause" syndrome : that certainly developed in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, and the hero was indeed Hindenburg. That's an interesting analogy : Lee and Hindenburg, and the cult of the Lost Cause.

Significantly, and more pertinently, Hindenburg was revered principally for a defensive victory. If the German nation could claim anything like a " Finest Hour" in the Great War, then surely that would be the victory at Tannenberg. A defensive triumph in a war in which Germany was the aggressor. And with the racial aspect to it : the vanquishing of the Slav by the Teuton.

I wonder whether Haig's Finest Hour was the defence his armies put up in the spring of 1918. That thought is what motivated me to start this thread. His performance as commander 1st Corps in October/November 1914 must also be taken into account.

We must not forget that, notwithstanding the controversies over Allied offensives such as the Somme and Third Ypres, the Entente fought a defensive war against Germany. The attritional battles that have attracted such opprobrium were in reality counter offensives.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice find Mike.

The war was won by the ordinary soldier sticking it out and doing as ordered IMHO.

FM Haig on the other hand gets full blame for the tragedy, and those that criticise him, often ignore the triumph. The triumph of Haig however was not just the battlefield – it was the organisation, infrastructure and construction of an entire army from citizens.

Cheers Roger

But as Roger says, somebody had to recruit, train, arm, equip, feed him etc., as well as plan and direct the battles that he fought in and that brought about a victory in 1918.

Worth some acknowledgement surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks everyone for your suggestions and advice, particularly on further reading material - it's appreciated!.

KB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...