PMHart Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 What a thoroughly unpleasant little man! Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 I’m surprised by those who disagree with the bile, and facile, one liner denigration of Haig submitted by the likes of Steenie, Wexflyer and Kitchener’s Bugler, but sit in mute acceptance of it, yet round on the person who stands up with a sound dissection and rejection of their comments, simply because it is a robust response. Forget that when others tried to engage W and KB with a reasonable approach they responded with contempt for the general members of this forum. Why are their crude, and ill-considered responses acceptable and George’s isn’t? To suggest they have no redress is ludicrous; they have every opportunity to refute George’s and Peter’s comment. Their previous responses and current silence suggests they can't mount a credible riposte, not that they have no redress. It seems that for some it is quite acceptable to denigrate a man who is not around to defend himself with crude and stupid comment, but it is unacceptable for others to vigorously reject such denigration. George might be direct and rigorous in defending Haig, but at least he has the courage to do so, and with well reasoned argument. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 I’m surprised by those who disagree with the bile, and facile, one liner denigration of Haig submitted by the likes of Steenie, Wexflyer and Kitchener’s Bugler, but sit in mute acceptance of it, yet round on the person who stands up with a sound dissection and rejection of their comments, simply because it is a robust response. Forget that when others tried to engage W and KB with a reasonable approach they responded with contempt for the general members of this forum. Why are their crude, and ill-considered responses acceptable and George’s isn’t? To suggest they have no redress is ludicrous; they have every opportunity to refute George’s and Peter’s comment. Their previous responses and current silence suggests they can't mount a credible riposte, not that they have no redress. It seems that for some it is quite acceptable to denigrate a man who is not around to defend himself with crude and stupid comment, but it is unacceptable for others to vigorously reject such denigration. George might be direct and rigorous in defending Haig, but at least he has the courage to do so, and with well reasoned argument. Regards Chris My comments about Haig are found at the outset of this thread. Personally I disliked the tone of George's reponse - much as PMHart appears to have disliked the tone of my rejoinder. What a thoroughly unpleasant little man! Pete What a child ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Whilst I can in no-way word fence with you educated and erudite posters ...can I just add my tuppence worth to this, in my limited Military experience, you can plan till you are blue in the face and you can detail different arms to be in such and such a place and you can direct unit 1 to assault x and unit 10 to assualt y and they might even manage to get there in the timings you have given..........but! unfortunately you can`t invite the enemy to your breifing and the result of that is that the enemy has an uncanny and slightly annoying habit of doing exactly the opposite of what you expect him to do and then of course there are the unexpected hitches along the way............all this done in an era when the telephone was in it`s infancy and the messages from Division to brigade were often being relayed by runner.......so chaos ruled at all times and for somebody to try and make sense of conflicting reports etc takes either a very dimwitted man or a man of amazing fortitude and intelligence...so ? Iain these are my ramblings and are not to be intrepreted as being the rational of a sane being! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Pip pip yourself, Suddery, old sport. Apart from the fact that your last two posts have contained zero information on Haig, you seem blithely oblivious to the irony of your having complained about me 'destroying people' rather than 'argument' whilst proceeding to fill your last two offerings with, er, attacks on people as some self-appointed guardian of poor helpless 'Wexflyer' and 'Kitchener's Bugle.' But such is the virulence of Suddery's sallying forth on their behalf that I rather suspect that he has in fact been nursing grievances against individuals on this forum whom he doesn't care for for some time. This thread just happens to be the one which has squeezed his particular zit to pus-spewing bursting. But if you want to think about 'destroying people', Suddery, I recommend you give a moment's reflection to Dawyck Haig and his sisters, the four children of the Field Marshal, who had to bear the virulent abuse of their dead father by the ignorant for decades. An abuse perpetuated in the smart-ass fact-free one-liners which were 'Wexflyer' and 'Kitchener's Bugle's' 'contributions' to this discussion. To others I say we should perhaps not be too hard on poor old Suddery - it cannot be easy going through life with all that bile inside. And besides, he did give much merriment after we got our breaths back with his thinking a balanced judgement on Haig could be arrived at based on E S Turner's broad agreement with a quote from Lloyd George! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Pip pip yourself, Suddery, old sport. Apart from the fact that your last two posts have contained zero information on Haig, you seem blithely oblivious to the irony of your having complained about me 'destroying people' rather than 'argument' whilst proceeding to fill your last two offerings with, er, attacks on people as some self-appointed guardian of poor helpless 'Wexflyer' and 'Kitchener's Bugle.' But such is the virulence of Suddery's sallying forth on their behalf that I rather suspect that he has in fact been nursing grievances against individuals on this forum whom he doesn't care for for some time. This thread just happens to be the one which has squeezed his particular zit to pus-spewing bursting. But if you want to think about 'destroying people', Suddery, I recommend you give a moment's reflection to Dawyck Haig and his sisters, the four children of the Field Marshal, who had to bear the virulent abuse of their dead father by the ignorant for decades. An abuse perpetuated in the smart-ass fact-free one-liners which were 'Wexflyer' and 'Kitchener's Bugle's' 'contributions' to this discussion. To others I say we should perhaps not be too hard on poor old Suddery - it cannot be easy going through life with all that bile inside. And besides, he did give much merriment after we got our breaths back with his thinking a balanced judgement on Haig could be arrived at based on E S Turner's broad agreement with a quote from Lloyd George! My comment on Haig, in respect of this thread was made in posts 2.4.7.11.15.and 16 with the"smart **** fact free one-liners' being provided by a certain PMHart - just an observation with regard to the latter, he after all started the trading of insults. That aside I do object to the tone you use "zit to pus-spewing bursting", not my bile being vented here merely your venom. Sorry to disappoint I've not been saving up a grievance, just dislike rudeness. Pippity pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 That aside I do object to the tone you use My heart, of course, bleeds for you. I note you cite a string of other posts, but attempt no defence of my criticism of your deployment of the Turner/Lloyd George quote which you obviously judge to be a reasonable source and prism to assess Haig's performance through. If you think of anything further on-topic to say get back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 31 August , 2012 Author Share Posted 31 August , 2012 One of the most admirable achievements of Haig was his loyalty and steadfastness as a coalition warrior. At least, that aspect has impinged more and more on me when I try and assess what I read about him. He makes some very unkind comments about Frenchmen - and other " foreigners" - but I sense that he needs the catharsis, and confines his remarks to his diary. Judging him by his deeds, he is an exemplary Entente soldier, and conforms to the requirements of coalition warfare better than those who went before, and, most markedly, than those who came after him. Reverting to my original theme when I started this thread, I seek opinions as to whether this quality was more apparent when he fought on the defensive in the autumn of 1914 and the spring and early summer of 1918, than it was when he engaged in offensive warfare. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 My heart, of course, bleeds for you. I note you cite a string of other posts, but attempt no defence of my criticism of your deployment of the Turner/Lloyd George quote which you obviously judge to be a reasonable source and prism to assess Haig's performance through. If you think of anything further on-topic to say get back to us. Ok the two points you mention: 1) "My heart, of course, bleeds for you". Thank you, a much more subtle insult more to my liking. 2) "but attempt no defence of my criticism of your deployment of the Turner/Lloyd George quote which you obviously judge to be a reasonable source and prism to assess Haig's performance through. If you think of anything further on-topic to say get back to us." "But it is harsh treatment to put a man in the dock and charge him with not being a genius when the country had taken especial care to discourage geniuses in uniform," Lloyd George criticised the regimental officer caste (not the new army) for not being in possession of the werewithall to view the war with vision and foresight - in short all the old donkey stuff / guff we are all aware of. Turner suggest that the body politic stood responsibility for this in consistently failing to fund a professional modern army over the past 100 years, thereby condemning an army for what were in effect his (political parties) own failings. The embodiement of Lloyd Georges argument was Haig who was effectively being blamed for having the wrong qualities. I believe, and I'm sure Turner implies, that Haig was the best possible option at that time and to damn him for not being a military genius (which he wasn't) is unfair. My point and the point behind my quote. Sudder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 It is an interesting exercise to read the index entries on Haig contained on pp 2073-2076 of the War Memoirs of Lloyd George. It comprises a lengthy litany of points from neutral, through damned with faint praise to explicit criticism of almost everything about him ... but the final entry is ... wait for it ... 'no conspicuous officer better qualified for highest command than,' expanded on in the main body on p 2042 as, 'There was no conspicuous officer in the Army who seemed to be better qualified for the Highest Command than Haig. That is to say, there was no outstanding General fit for so overwhelming a position as command of a force five times as great as the largest army ever commanded by Napoleon, and many more times the size of any army led by Alexander, Hannibal or Caesar.' Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 It is an interesting exercise to read the index entries on Haig contained on pp 2073-2076 of the War Memoirs of Lloyd George. It comprises a lengthy litany of points from neutral, through damned with faint praise to explicit criticism of almost everything about him ... but the final entry is ... wait for it ... 'no conspicuous officer better qualified for highest command than,' expanded on in the main body on p 2042 as, 'There was no conspicuous officer in the Army who seemed to be better qualified for the Highest Command than Haig. That is to say, there was no outstanding General fit for so overwhelming a position as command of a force five times as great as the largest army ever commanded by Napoleon, and many more times the size of any army led by Alexander, Hannibal or Caesar.' Jack Well, doesn't surprise me in the least; To say Lloyd George was wily would probably be a compliment, he did after all subsume Haig to French command. Something Haig took with pragmatism. Suddery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Personally I disliked the tone of George's response. But not the tone of W's and KB's contemptuous remarks? Frankly, I thought George's reply to their comments was brilliant. Their quite unnecessary and rude remarks deserved what they received. Given the readiness of so many to regurgitate the ignorant, dishonest, and utterly crude condemnation of Haig, George's passionate and articulate defence of the man is admirable. Put in a simple soldier's language, if I were ever to go back into action again, I would be very happy to have George in the weapon pit beside me. I know where he stands, and he has the courage of his convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Lloyd George criticised the regimental officer caste (not the new army) for not being in possession of the werewithall to view the war with vision and foresight - in short all the old donkey stuff / guff we are all aware of. Turner suggest that the body politic stood responsibility for this in consistently failing to fund a professional modern army over the past 100 years, thereby condemning an army for what were in effect his (political parties) own failings. The embodiement of Lloyd Georges argument was Haig who was effectively being blamed for having the wrong qualities. I believe, and I'm sure Turner implies, that Haig was the best possible option at that time and to damn him for not being a military genius (which he wasn't) is unfair, OK putting aside Lloyd George's self serving, generalisation on the mental capacity of the regimental officer caste, but which was not demonstrated by subsequent events where many of the "regimental officer caste" proved themselves to be very capable under the most trying conditions, and many of them gave their lives gallantly in pursuit of the British Government's aims, and the ridiculous inference the new army officers were more competent, could we please have your views on what a military genius is, and where Haig fell down against your criteria? Napoleon is generally put up as one without any regard for the enormous reduction in the French male population that occurred during his time, and the complete destruction of his army in Russia in 1812. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 OK putting aside Lloyd George's self serving, generalisation on the mental capacity of the regimental officer caste, but which was not demonstrated by subsequent events where many of the "regimental officer caste" proved themselves to be very capable under the most trying conditions, and many of them gave their lives gallantly in pursuit of the British Government's aims, could we please have your views on what a military genius is, and where Haig fell down against your criteria? Napoleon is generally put up as one without any regard for the enormous reduction in the French male population that occurred during his time, and the complete destruction of his army in Russia in 1812. Chris So, I'm to put aside the points you agree with and justify those you don't ? George does a fine job of talking for himself and I'm sure he doesn't need you to fight his battles for him; what was his comment "I don't think 'Wexflyer' or 'Kitchener's Bugle' need you as their knight in shining armour to fight the battles they initiated for them, Suddery. They are both big boys and I'm sure they can take a response given in the manner of their own posts." Can't have it all ways. Suddery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulsterlad2 Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 - 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. I haven't the subject knowledge or the written language skills to engage in intellectual sword fencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 31 August , 2012 Author Share Posted 31 August , 2012 Napoleon is generally put up as one without any regard for the enormous reduction in the French male population that occurred during his time, and the complete destruction of his army in Russia in 1812. Chris Buonaparte, the Corsican, proved himself to be the supreme killer of Frenchmen. He was, apparently, much loved by them. A transcendental personality. Earlier on in this thread I wondered what Zhukov might have said about Haig. Now I think it would be equally intriguing to hear what Napoleon's commentary would be. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 So, I'm to put aside the points you agree with and justify those you don't ? I would have thought that was sensible. We are talking about Haig aren't we? If we agree on certain points why quibble with them? You made the comment Haig was not a military genius, I was just interested in how you came to that judgement. As to the rest of your post, if I wish to defend George, then I will without your permission. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener's Bugle Posted 31 August , 2012 Share Posted 31 August , 2012 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.. I just haven't had the time to reply as I am desperately trying to find the "Skindles" page on this forum..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 Get a hundred posts up KB and all will revealed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 the Second World War was characterised by smart and humane generalship, with the fighting being mobile and the casualties light by comparison. Any doubters were advised to survey the school's war memorial, on which, sure enough, there were three or four times as many names from 1914-18 as there were from 1939-45. I often reflect on how far this was a "generational" thing. Dad and his pals were all middle aged veterans from the Second World War, seeing their sons entering adolescence, and surely this made them think about how they had themselves endured the war years despite the promise of the " War to End Wars." There was a feeling that their fathers had been duped, and callously led. Haig was the best possible target for the popular revulsion. Phil (PJA) Phil, I think you are partially correct, in terms of the perspective at that time. Your comments got me researching some data. Carlo D'este (Decision in Normandy) gives the Allied ground force casualties in the 80 day battle for Normandy as 208, 892 or a daily casualty rate of 2611 per day, while Niall Barr (Pendulum of War) gives the 8th Army's casualties at Second El Alamein (13 days) as 13,560 or a daily rate of 1043 per day. For the two battles Haig is condemned for, The Somme, a battle Haig did not want to fight, and Third Ypres, a battle he advocated fighting, and accepting that the casualties for them will never be precise, John Terraine’s analysis (The Smoke and The Fire) is revealing. At Table C he gives the Battle of the Somme casualties (141 days) as 415,000 or a rate of 2950 per day, and casualties for The Battle of Third Ypres (105 days) as 244,000 or a daily rate of 2121, a rate lower than the Normandy battles. Had Normandy gone on for 105 days at a daily rate of 2611 the total butcher’s bill would have been 274,155, or for 141 days it would have risen to 368,151. Clearly The Somme is the worst of these, but not the worst of the war. Terraine gives the casualties for the final 96 days during the advance to victory, when Haig gave his commanders a good deal of latitude, as 350,000 or 3,645 per day. The difference, of course, was that Normandy and El Alamein were clear cut victories, while the Somme and Third Ypres were not. However, we also have to factor in the situation in which each battle was fought. Among other factors, including the huge advantage of Ultra intelligence, at El Alamein and Normandy (once the Allies had built up the beachhead) the Germans were badly outnumbered, in men, material and logistic support. Over the course of the Somme and Third Ypres they were not, and they threw in every resource they could make available, but in the end they acknowledged defeat at The Somme by withdrawing to the Hindenburg Line in early 1917, while at Third Ypres, they lost all the key terrain in the area, which they had desperately tried to avoid, and their Army had suffered losses from which they never recovered. Given that Haig is condemned for following an attrition strategy, a course for which he had no other option available to him if victory was to be achieved, the following passage from Russell Weigley (The Age of Battles) is interesting, given Wellington is a revered British commander: “The Peninsular War was a contest not of climatic battles but of attrition; it signaled the imminent eclipse of the age of battles. Before the close of the next great war - the American Civil War - rival military chieftains would have abandoned the quest for rapid strategic decision through the climatic battle to adopt instead a strategy much like Wellington’s in Iberia, relying on superior management of resources, both manpower and material, to wear down the enemy and outlast him in a prolonged battle of attrition.” Food for thought. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 It could well be the subject of a refereed article, Salesie. Nice to be in contact with you again. Regards Chris Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is a "refereed article"? I get involved very little in the forum these days, Chris. Mainly because I'm non too keen on the more zealous form of moderation that has crept in over the past few months - only a few weeks ago, a rare foray into a thread led to one of my posts being "censored" on the grounds of lack of courtesy because, in the words of a moderator, "the forum is an officers mess and strict rules on courtesy apply" (yet this thread contains much less courtesy than my "censored" post did). Churls such as me can't be bothered dealing with such delusional and inconsistent attitudes. Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 1 September , 2012 Author Share Posted 1 September , 2012 Chris, Some very misleading casualty analysis has been presented in order to portray the Normandy fighting as worse than some of the more notorious battles of the Great War. Gordon Corrigan - in his book Mud, Blood and Poppycock, which I consider excellent - made a comparison between the Somme and Normandy which I refuted in another thread. As for Third Ypres ( and here I'm going to make a niggardly quibble) , the 2,121 rate that commentators use is a typo or an arithmetical error,, since 245,000 divided by 105 comes to 2,333 ! But I do acknowledge and appreciate the point you make, and I think we'll all agree that for the infantryman carrying rifle and bayonet into battle, and closing with the enemy, battle in 1944- 45 was as deadly as it had been in 1916 and 1917. As for the fighting of 1918 - and here I refer to the 350,000 of the period commencing August 8th - it should be noted that these were for the entire front, whereas the 415,000 of the Somme in 1916 were confined to a sector, and a relatively very small one at that. More especially, the high casualties of this 1918 fighting contained a much greater proportion of gassed and prisoners : the number who died was markedly smaller, the ratio among these casualties allowing for a much better survival rate than that Golgotha on the Somme in 1916. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 Hi Salesie, According to this definition: Peer reviewed articles (or refereed articles) primarily appear in academic, scientific or other scholarly publications and are judged by an impartial panel of two or more experts in the field. The judgment criteria for any peer review article varies depending on the publication and subject matter, but peer reviewers (or referees) primarily focus on ensuring that an article is factually accurate, provides new information in a specified field and meets the proofreading and editorial guidelines of the publication. See post #50 above for the context of my comment. Some people seem to think that in writing refereed articles it somehow gives them superior knowledge over those who haven't. I noticed that on returning to the forum after over a year away, there was limited discussion on contentious issues, which is more the pity as it was a fine place to thrash them out. Now really a place to simply exchange information. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 Hi Phil, Fair enough. I should have calculated Terraine's figures, rather than just accepting them. Nonetheless your calculations are still a lesser rate than Normandy if D'Este's figures are correct, and it seems in checking another source that they are. But we agree on the main point that in what is termed "high intensity conflict' the battlefield is deadly place. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 1 September , 2012 Share Posted 1 September , 2012 Hi Salesie, According to this definition: Peer reviewed articles (or refereed articles) primarily appear in academic, scientific or other scholarly publications and are judged by an impartial panel of two or more experts in the field. The judgment criteria for any peer review article varies depending on the publication and subject matter, but peer reviewers (or referees) primarily focus on ensuring that an article is factually accurate, provides new information in a specified field and meets the proofreading and editorial guidelines of the publication. See post #50 above for the context of my comment. Some people seem to think that in writing refereed articles it somehow gives them superior knowledge over those who haven't. I noticed that on returning to the forum after over a year away, there was limited discussion on contentious issues, which is more the pity as it was a fine place to thrash them out. Now really a place to simply exchange information. Regards Chris Thanks for that, Chris. One now wonders why no example of the guy's "work" has been posted in this thread? Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now