Haig's achievement.

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Kitchener’s Bugle,

The links George refers to are here:

http://1914-1918.inv...167305&hl= haig

and

http://1914-1918.inv...pic=91828&st=25

They are well worth reading.

Perhaps you can tell us which books you have read on Haig, and the Great War. We might then understand the very simplistic view you have of the subject. Regarding the political/military relationship in war, it is Governments who actually decide the strategy to be employed. As you say. they do indeed sanction every operation, and sometimes drive for its adoption, as Churchill did `for Gallipoli, or insist on them despite military advice against doing so, as the Britsih cabinet did in response to French pressure, for Loos and The Somme. So who is to "blame" for the casualties in those instances?

Haig’s views on machine guns, where he embraced them as far back as 1898, can be found in David Scott’s The Preparatory Prologue: Douglas Haig Diaries and Letters 1861-1914. Interestingly, contrary to popular perception, my research has shown the British Army embraced the machine gun well before the German Army did. By about 1900 British infantry battalions had two, while the German infantry had rejected them, although the trial guns were placed in Jager units where they were regarded as an impediment. Not until after the Russo-Japanese War had demonstrated their worth, did the German Army decide to incorporate them into four of their brigades in 1907, and in 1911 the Army Bill provided for 113 machine gun companies to phased into the infantry brigades over a five year period. So the old myth that Haig and the British Army were behind the ball on machine guns has been discredited by several sources.

Regards

Chris

Thanks Crunchy for the links, I will read them..... I would say that the Generals and the Politicians where both to blame to a large extent. The "people" did vote a new government in though....sadly though it was the executive who decides on the Chiefs of the Military Saff not the people.

I know that the machine gun was used in the American Civil War and in the Mexican Revolution but as you say the Europeans did not initially give it much relevance until the 1900's...

I have a view on who I would have liked to have seen take over if Haig had resigned or had been sacked - but I dare not post it as I would likely be Nuked! (Or perhaps hit with Mustard Gas as no Nukes back in WW1).

[Crunchy]

I know that the machine gun was used in the American Civil War and in the Mexican Revolution but as you say the Europeans did not initially give it much relevance until the 1900's...

Kitchener's Bugle,

Actually that is another myth. A very few Gatling Guns ( a mechanical rather than true automatic machine gun) were purchased by a couple of Union generals in 1865, but I have yet to find a single instance of them being used in action. The Gatling Gun was introduced into the US Army after the war, in 1866. The French had the Millitereuse in the late 1860's and used it during the Franco-Prussian War. The British adopted Gardiner Guns, another mechanical machine gun, in about 1884, employing them in the Mahdist War (Sudan in 1885). They tested the Maxim Gun (the first true machine gun) soon after it came out, found it suitable, introduced it into their Army in 1889, and used it in the First Matabele War in 1893-1894. This demonstrates they quickly recognised the relevance of them.

Regards

Chris

Edit: See also post # 44 by George on the thread in the second link. An excellent rebuttal of the myth about Haig and machine guns.

[Crunchy]

I have a view on who I would have liked to have seen take over if Haig had resigned or had been sacked - but I dare not post it as I would likely be Nuked!

Have the courage of your convictions, you might be surprised.

The only reason people come down on some of your assertions, is because of the abundant evidence, based on well researched argument, in a great many sources that for over twenty years have credibly discredited your views, and the rubbish served up by Cark, Laffin, Winters and the film industry. Put something up that has a ring of credibility to it, and you will find members of this forum, even if they disagree, will engage without "Nukeing" you. That's assuming that you don't consider any reply in disagreement is a "Nuke". It is the unsubstantiated, one liner, dishonest vilification of Haig they won't put up with.

Regards

Chris

[phil andrade]

The report of Grigoriy Krivosheyev which you talk of does not include the deaths of conscripted reservists captured before being listed on active strength, or Partisan dead or militia dead or the 1M citizens that the Germans considered political POW's actively adding to the material fight for Russia. These groups are teated by the Soviets as Civilian Dead. You will find that the majority of western sources conclude different figures than the Soviets - not surprisingly.

Kirosheev ( sp?) cited the archives, which were opened up for research ( at a price) in the glasnost era. I think that the figure of 5.2 million killed or died before evacuation and 1.1 million died of wounds in hospital is an authentic Red Army source, and as near to definitive as we're ever going to get. I take your point about the huge number of "peripheral" losses, which might well have swelled the 8.7 million to 10 million ; but I think the aggregate 6.3 million combat fatalities is sound and as reliable as it can get. The bulk of the difference is, I think, attributable to more than one million additional who perished as prisoners in German hands.

The population of the Soviet Union in 1941 was roughly five times that of Metropolitan France in 1914, and there is, in proportional terms, a degree of parity between the battle fatalities suffered. The French rate was the slightly lower, which reflects the enormous contribution of British blood : no country shared the burden with the Soviet Union in its warfare on the eastern front 1941-45.

The tradition of British warfare had been to rely on maritime might and financial inducements to keep away from Continental bloodbaths,

Haig was instrumental in breaking that tradition, and wholeheartedly co-operated in coalition warfare.

Phil (PJA)

[bill24chev]

Generaly speaking the majority of forum members who contribute to this forum are well read and although perhaps having rheir own pert theories on various aspects of WW1 are willing to listen to others researched and presented arguments. Some members are as entrenched in their own theories for what ever reason that they will never admit that others have valid points of view and that although events in history are fixed our ubderstaning of those events can develope as more information and source documents are researched.

Historians are of their time, and contemporary ideas and views at the time they are working will influence them. Much of the "donkeys" and "butcher" theories seem to have developed in the 1930's which was a time of significant pasificim. It was then developed further in the 1960's which was a time of social and political change. There is a hint of the egg or chicken in these ideas i.e did the pacificim lead to the tone of historic research or did the historic resaerch influence pacificim? I will admit I have not realy considered this until now so I have not rerad enough to give a valid answer.

Some contributions to this thread seem to be influenced by this donkeys and butchers theme and possibly have not fully researched thed alternative ideas.

I also beleive that some of the posts in this thread have invited others to come up with alternative strategies for the conduct of WW1. Remarque

wrote a scene where Paul Baumer is overwhelmed by his fathers friends telling him how the war could be won. They no more understood the realities of WW1 than some members on this forum seem to understand it. I for one, although I spent a significant part of my life as a soldier. cannot fully comprehend the conditions on the Western front.

Some of us, to mix metaphors have risen to our own bait and must accept the Flak.

[David Filsell]

"Ferguson is foremost an economist and I won't even go into what he says would have happened had Britain kept its nose out, except that we would have had a united Europe without another war."

But a wonderful self publicist - I crossed swords with him at a lecture about one his early "what if's book" by suggesting that it was a pointless book. He went all hissy fit, it was terrific. Nothing I have read of his since has made me revise my view thast despite his brain the size of a galaxy he is anything more than a self publicist lacking what by old grandpa would have called "ballast".

He has no part to play in any worthwhile discussion about the abilities of Haig.

Welcome back George - I missed your contributions

[ianjonesncl]

Googling, I too came up with DeGroot's " Blighty "

I hope to read it some day, whenever I get some time. Have you read it?

Anyway, do you really believe Haig didn't care about casualties. As I said, my reading on subject is limited, but Haig was not universally loathed by the returning soldiers, quite the opposite I reckon.

Mike

Mike

Maybe did not care...... but indifferent and / or remote.

Certainly when I worked at Divisional / Corps HQ, albeit on peace time exercises, I felt there was a remoteness whereby it was pins on maps, rather like looking at the Official Histories and seeing a unit as symbols, rather than as soldiers.

My own personal thoughts and part of the way I try to rationalise the carnage.

Ian

[George Armstrong Custer]

Maybe did not care...... but indifferent and / or remote.

Leaving aside the final decade of his life which he devoted to the causes of finding employment for his former soldiers, and of campaigning for provision for the disabled amongst them - both being practical continuations of concerns which he'd regularly raised during the war - there is contemporary evidence set out in the posts linked to here that Haig did not regard the men he commanded as mere pins on maps:

http://1914-1918.inv...25#entry1651538

http://1914-1918.inv...50#entry1653246

I'd be interested to read any similar sources you know of which might support your suggestion that Haig was 'indifferent or remote' in regard to the casualties which defeating the German army incurred?

On your analogy with peacetime exercises, I'm pretty sure that only a sociopath would retain the 'pins on maps' view from peacetime exercises when the shooting started in earnest and when, like Haig, they'd seen casualty clearing stations and spoken regularly with the clergy who tended the dying and conducted the burial services. This explains the stress under which a man in Haig's position operates in time of war, a stress commented on by Air Marshal Hugh Trenchard:

"[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."

[Crunchy]

Certainly when I worked at Divisional / Corps HQ, albeit on peace time exercises, I felt there was a remoteness whereby it was pins on maps, rather like looking at the Official Histories and seeing a unit as symbols, rather than as soldiers.

Ian,

While your observations on Divisional exercises are probably correct, the big difference is that casualties don't occur on exercises so the emotions concerning them are absent. Haig may have been remote, but I don't think that necessarily translates into indifference.

Regards

Chris

[Rab]

the big difference is that casualties don't occur on exercises so the emotions concerning them are absent.

Most exercises I know of do have casualties, whether serious injuries or deaths. This one, for example, was quite traumatic for those involved in the exercise.

http://www.guardian....ardnortontaylor

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Kitchener's Bugle,

Actually that is another myth. A very few Gatling Guns ( a mechanical rather than true automatic machine gun) were purchased by a couple of Union generals in 1865, but I have yet to find a single instance of them being used in action. The Gatling Gun was introduced into the US Army after the war, in 1866. The French had the Millitereuse in the late 1860's and used it during the Franco-Prussian War. The British adopted Gardiner Guns, another mechanical machine gun, in about 1884, employing them in the Mahdist War (Sudan in 1885). They tested the Maxim Gun (the first true machine gun) soon after it came out, found it suitable, introduced it into their Army in 1889, and used it in the First Matabele War in 1893-1894. This demonstrates they quickly recognised the relevance of them.

Regards

Chris

Edit: See also post # 44 by George on the thread in the second link. An excellent rebuttal of the myth about Haig and machine guns.

Thanks for that Chris, yes, I see - only adopted in 1866 by the Union Army but "demonstrated" in combat during the war, but as you say not a machine gun as we might define it now but a gattling gun. (handle operated). Suprised that we used it the the Sudan though... was any used in the Boar War?

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Kirosheev ( sp?) cited the archives, which were opened up for research ( at a price) in the glasnost era. I think that the figure of 5.2 million killed or died before evacuation and 1.1 million died of wounds in hospital is an authentic Red Army source, and as near to definitive as we're ever going to get. I take your point about the huge number of "peripheral" losses, which might well have swelled the 8.7 million to 10 million ; but I think the aggregate 6.3 million combat fatalities is sound and as reliable as it can get. The bulk of the difference is, I think, attributable to more than one million additional who perished as prisoners in German hands.

The population of the Soviet Union in 1941 was roughly five times that of Metropolitan France in 1914, and there is, in proportional terms, a degree of parity between the battle fatalities suffered. The French rate was the slightly lower, which reflects the enormous contribution of British blood : no country shared the burden with the Soviet Union in its warfare on the eastern front 1941-45.

The tradition of British warfare had been to rely on maritime might and financial inducements to keep away from Continental bloodbaths,

Haig was instrumental in breaking that tradition, and wholeheartedly co-operated in coalition warfare.

Phil (PJA)

Many Thanks PJA, We might never know the definative figures (no doubt Stalin may have blamed the Germans for some of "his own work"). I think we all agree though that the situation was truely appauling, particularly for the Civilian population. As you say no county (perhaps) ever has suffered losses like the Soviet Union.

Thanks again KB.

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Have the courage of your convictions, you might be surprised.

The only reason people come down on some of your assertions, is because of the abundant evidence, based on well researched argument, in a great many sources that for over twenty years have credibly discredited your views, and the rubbish served up by Cark, Laffin, Winters and the film industry. Put something up that has a ring of credibility to it, and you will find members of this forum, even if they disagree, will engage without "Nukeing" you. That's assuming that you don't consider any reply in disagreement is a "Nuke". It is the unsubstantiated, one liner, dishonest vilification of Haig they won't put up with.

Regards

Chris

Thanks Chris, all points taken, I might just post my proposal at the weekend when I have a little more time. I wont consider the reactions as being "nuked" I have had to grow a thick skin on here already!!!!. Contary to what some of you might think - I do not disrespect any of you, or your truely excellent knowledge/undertstanding or the articulate way in which you express yourselves. In fact some of your rebuffs and qips have been outstanding in themselves. General George, Crunchy, Suddery and the others - my hat is off to you, I hope that you can find it in your hearts to not bear any grudges and to show just a little patience with me in the future. I will for definate, be needing some pointers on a few things down the line that I know that you will be able to help with.

Best wishes to you all. KB.

[phil andrade]

Many Thanks PJA, We might never know the definative figures (no doubt Stalin may have blamed the Germans for some of "his own work"). I think we all agree though that the situation was truely appauling, particularly for the Civilian population. As you say no county (perhaps) ever has suffered losses like the Soviet Union.

Thanks again KB.

Forgive me for giving these statistical renditions. They make most unpalatable reading. I do have a mission, though : I sometimes feel that the outrageous losses suffered by the Soviet Union 1941-45 are too often cited as a means of downplaying the slaughter of 1914-1918. I think it's important to stress how terrible the French military casualties in the Great War were, especially in 1914-15 ; and I wanted to illustrate how, in proportional terms, they approached those sustained by the Red Army a quarter of a century later. But, of course, as you emphasise, the civilian losses sustained by Russia in WWII were on a different scale altogether.

From quite early on in the war, Haig was aware of how fragile the French army had become on account of these inordinate casualties.

On reflection, I feel we must acknowledge that his task was uniquely difficult in the history of British High Command - and not only because of the scale and intensity of the fighting he had to conduct.

Edit : Your kind and gracious comments win my respect, KB.

Phil (PJA)

[ianjonesncl]

Most exercises I know of do have casualties, whether serious injuries or deaths. This one, for example, was quite traumatic for those involved in the exercise.

http://www.guardian....ardnortontaylor

And actualy in some cases influence operational decisons which can have a direct impact. However I think this is outside the Haig discussion.

[Crunchy]

Most exercises I know of do have casualties, whether serious injuries or deaths. This one, for example, was quite traumatic for those involved in the exercise.

http://www.guardian....ardnortontaylor

Rob.

Many of the exercises I was on didn't have accidental fatalities. Nonetheless, the point I was making was the accidental fatalities on exercises cannot be compared with the huge casualties experienced on the Western Front.

Regards

Chris

[Crunchy]

only adopted in 1866 by the Union Army but "demonstrated" in combat during the war,

KB,

No not demonstrated in combat as far as I know. As mentioned I cannot find a single instance of them being used in combat. It may be the couple Butler purchased were used in his defenses at Bermuda One Hundred, but there is no evidence I have come across to suggest they were. Perhaps some of our American members might have evidence of their use in combat.

Regards

Chris

[Crunchy]

Suprised that we used it the the Sudan though... was any used in the Boar War?

KB,

Yes, many British battalions had them, at a time the German Army was just experimenting with them - at the Kaiser's insistence I might add..

Regards

Chris

[jacksdad]

KB

You will probably do well to read a few recent books about Field Marshal Haig.

So much of what I believed about tactics, Haig and the generals was clouded by my father and Grandfathers perceptions, and myths about the war and Haig that are often little more than blatant lies.

When you are faced with the abject horror of the whole war the convenient explanation is that someone must have stuffed up and the road leads directly back to Haig. From that easy bet comes a whole raft of half truths, fudging and quotes out of context that seem to back it all up – so easy – Haig was at fault.

But the fact of the matter is far more brilliant than that. FM Haig was given a hospital pass (in rugby terms), and inherited an army that he had to rebuild from the heavy fighting of 1915 and who had no real answer as how to turn the war around. He then through trial and error turned a collection of divisions into a formidable force. That won the war. Haig was the right man at the right time and contrary to my past opinions - He was a great general - brilliant because he learned how to win – he was tenacious, unbending and resolute under attack and he carried the war and the empire to victory. He deserves better than he has got and 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, so you have done well.

Millions of good men died, but the simple fact is once the Governments got the war started, it took on its own life that was predestined to take the lives of millions. Blame the man who took the war to a, all be it costly end, just no longer stacks up in my mind.

edited - line after: (Hospital pass)

Edited 7 September , 2012 by RogerShephard

[Crunchy]

KB,

Firstly, at least you have stayed around - well done.

Secondly, Roger makes several valid points.

The old popular view of Haig, based largely on ignorance and blatant lies, such as your quote that Haig remarked the machine gun was a highly over rated weapon, have been discredited by thorough research. (As I understand it the quote supposedly came from a Liddell-Hart book, but when someone checked the source he quoted, there was no mention of Haig. Liddell-Hart had his own agenda and often over egged his arguments).

If you are interested in reading more, of the books I have read on him I would recommend the following:

Andrew Wiest, Haig: The Evolution of a Commander, this is a short overview and would be a good place to start.

Walter Reid, Haig: The Architect of Victory,

John Terraine, Douglas Haig: The Educated Soldier,

Gary Mead, Haig: The Good Soldier,

Others have recommended:

J.P Harris, Douglas Haig and the First World War, although George has a contrary view here: http://1914-1918.inv...110069&st=0

and here http://1914-1918.inv...ic=110069&st=75 Scroll down to post #94

Gary Sheffield, The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army

Tavish Davidson, Haig: Master of the Field.

I would shy clear of Denis Winter’s Haig’s Command: A reassesment. It is a quite unbalanced vilification of the man. As I said earlier Professor Jeffery Grey checked Winter’s sources and regarded the book as a manufactured fraud. IMO Winter's book is dishonest.

I wouldn’t agree with Roger that the BEF Haig took over had been thrashed by the German war machine, rather the old professional British Army had largely been destroyed by early 1915. The point is Haig took over a new army of largely untrained officers and men, with many of the old professionals catapulted into positions well above their level of experience. One cannot weld an army into an effective fighting machine in the short term - it takes time and battle experience, and as Roger says Haig and his generals did this. IMO it was getting there in 1917, but the German Army was still a formidable foe at that stage of the war.

Roger’s point that Haig was tenacious, unbending and resolute is germane to his success as a commander. In war strong, resolute commanders are essential if one is win, and the British Government wasn’t going to accept anything but victory. His assessment of the heavy casualties that would be incurred to achieve victory was, IMO, a realistic assessment rather than a callous acceptance. The British Government accepted that price or they would have sued for peace. I don’t think any other commander could have performed much better than Haig or prosecuted the war with substantially less casualties. One also has to remember that while Haig was in overall command, as CINC BEF he worked at the strategic/operational level of war, and accepting that his Army commanders operated mainly at the operational/tactical level, the tactical planning and fighting was undertaken by the Corps, Divisional, Brigade and Battalion commanders with varying degrees of competence and success. Thus the whole argument that somehow Haig was incompetent, callous and is to blame for the tremendous casualties incurred ignores all of these factors, and the very pertinent one that the German Army was a very formidable foe who was not going to give in easily. I not into blame games, they ignore the underlying reasons why things happened the way they did, and those who are too ready to point the finger either seem reluctant or are incapable of explaining how things could have been done better.

Regards

Chris

[Black Maria]

KB

, an army who had been roundly thrashed by the German war machine,

I doubt that the survivors of the Old Contemptibles would have agreed with that view.

[jacksdad]

I doubt that the survivors of the Old Contemptibles would have agreed with that view.

Agreed - no disrespect intended. it was a bad choice of words that in light of your point distracts from those brave men and my intended point.

I wouldn’t agree with Roger that the BEF Haig took over had been thrashed by the German war machine, rather the old professional British Army had largely been destroyed by early 1915. The point is Haig took over a new army of largely untrained officers and men, with many of the old professionals catapulted into positions well above their level of experience. One cannot weld an army into an effective fighting machine in the short term - it takes time and battle experience, and as Roger says Haig and his generals did this. IMO it was getting there in 1917, but the German Army was still a formidable foe at that stage of the war.

Agreed - thashed is the wrong word, you have summed up better what i was trying to say. i have edited that so as to highlight what i was better getting at - and that is credit too Haig

Cheers Roger

[phil andrade]

" Reputational rehabilitation"...Wow ! What a phrase !

I heard it on BBC Radio 4 a day or two ago, alluding to the new chairman of The Arts Council, who is hoping to atone for bringing us Big Brother.

Earlier on in this thread I wrote that Haig was still in need of reputational rehabilitation. Now I'm not so sure.

George and Co. have done such a good job that people who subscribe to the Clarke/ Laffin school are beginnig to look like donkeys themselves. Indeed, I wonder if George has done his job too well : so fierce is his rebuttal.

This has been mentioned before, but it seems more pertinent than ever now : it's not so much Haig's reputational rehabilitation that is at stake, but that of the Great War itself. Since the war is portrayed in such a negative way - in its causes, its conduct and its outcome - those associated with its management are condemned by association. In the case of Haig this has been amplified, principally, I believe, because his role, uniquely, entailed the committment of British armies to the mass slaughter of continental land warfare on the grand scale.

That very slaughter has itself been subjected to reputational rehabilitation, with commentators insisting that compared with other episodes in the history of human conflict it does not deserve the notoriety it gets. 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. This I find especially disconcerting. I think the pendulum has swung too far that way. This school of thought has been particularly apparent in recent commentary on the Battle of the Somme. I hope that, while Haig's achievements are properly acknowledged, we will not subscribe to the view that seeks to play down the intensity and bloodiness of the battles he fought.

Phil (PJA)

[Crunchy]

I hope that, while Haig's achievements are properly acknowledged, we will not subscribe to the view that seeks to play down the intensity and bloodiness of the battles he fought.

I don't think anyone is trying to do that Phil. We are just trying to keep them in perspective, and noting that he wasn't the only one who fought very bloody battles. 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

[phil andrade]

They were an anomaly in terms of British experience - on that we must all agree, surely.

One of our best military historians, Gordon Corrigan, has challenged this by suggesting that Normandy casualty rates were higher than those of the Somme, a contention that I wish to refute. I've been there before and I musn't push my luck by dredging it all up again.

One of the things that I have particulary apppreciated on this foray is the way that George has invited us to consider the humanity of Haig : the citation of Smuts's verdict that Haig was a great soldier and a greater gentleman is priceless.

Phil (PJA)