Is the WFA biased?

[Jonathan Saunders]

John Laffin (1988) "British Butchers & Bunglers of WW1"

"In 1926 Haig commented in a book review: "I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity of the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse - the well-bred horse - as you ever done in the past."

[Terry_Reeves]

Signals

Thanks. Does Laffin state his which book review it was?

Terry Reeves

[Jonathan Saunders]

Terry - Annoyingly not I am afraid.

[Frank_East]

Signals post on Thursday 10 April.

"In 1926 Haig commented in a book review".These comments are quoted on the Digger Web Site with the source as I see unidentified.

This is the Web Site which caused some controversy on the forum recently regarding its appreciation of the British Military leadership during the Great War.

I think that we have to accept that there will always be a vast difference of opinion between ANZAC observers and the Haig defenders.

On another WebSite, (Zenith I think) was posted.

"The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd.It is short of treasonous" Source quoted as "ADC to Field Marshal Haig at tank demonstration. 1916."

Regarding the second statement, Was it correct? Who was the ADC?. It is easy to see a subordinate saying to his boss what the boss would like to hear.After all Haig professed military skills were those of a cavalryman.

Regards

Frank East

[Annette Burgoyne]

Can anyone correct me if I'am wrong but I read somewhere that the Tank Corps critcized Haig for useing the small number of Tanks then available in September 1916, instead of waiting until there was a larger number of Tanks. Does this not show Haig's keeness to use New Weapons, evan if he did not have the full understanding of how to use Tanks to their full potential.

Plus if Haig was such a bad General, why did so many ex-Soldiers line the route of his funeral.

I am not a Haig fan but he was not as bad as the 60's-70's writers make out, and if the WFA had ever backed this old fashioned view I for one would not have joined but thankfully it as people who back the so called revisionist view, as well as having those who back the butcher view.

I am all for what Martin said, when he suggest that people recommend where to look, read and research for arguments on both sides, so people can make up their own minds.

[Jonathan Saunders]

There were abou 70 tanks in France in Sept 1916 for trials and crew training. Haig insisted on using them against the recommendations of just about everyone who had been directly involved in their development up until that time. In my opinion he did not do this becasue he was embracing new technology but because in two months he had expanded 150k casualties in capturing lees ground that his offensive was supposed to have taken in the first wave of the attack. Others may disagree but I think he insisted on using the tanks because he was desperate due to the failure and human costs of his battle strategies.

I think 34 tanks made it to the starting line and most, as predicted, broke down very soon after. Haig also deployed them over a large stretch of the front rather than using them as a concentrated hammer head, again against the recommendations of Swinton et al. The surprise of the tank was in fact wasted by Haig.

I expect old soldiers lined the route of his funeral for many different reasons, some in blinding respect due to the class system that existed at the time, others perhaps to salute him as if they were saluting their old comrades, friends etc that didnt come back. I expect others through curiosity. I dont think you can use attendance as a measure at all, certainly not in the same way you can use the first hand accounts written from about 1916 onwards. Not just the war poets and the subalterns writing home but by the late 1920's many other ranks were also putting down in words their feelings on the British Generals on the Somme and Passchendaele.

[Hedley Malloch]

My understanding is that the ultimate Allied success did not lie in things like tanks or other weapons of terror like gas or flamethrowers. The effects of these technological innovations was short-lived as the enemy quickly developed answers for them. Rather it was in better patterns of organisation; more, quicker and better information flows; better use of existing technologies like machine-guns and artillery; and improved co-ordination between army units and between the services.

Much of this was 'bottom-up' strategy made on the hoof by ordinary soldiers in the front line in the course of doing their jobs. Later it may have later been formalised and incorporated into the official planning systems of the Army. But it is not clear that Haig + co. knew much about these crucial organisational innovations at the time of their development. And if he did he probably would have stopped them.

So Haig could have been a butcher and bungler and the British Army could have been a learning organisation at the same time. They are not opposite sides of the same coin.

Terry: technology does not lead tactics - or at least it shouldn't. Once you start to let technology dicatate tactics and strategy ... well, read the history of any dot.com company. Tactics and strategy should be led by brains, creativity and an appreciation that intelligence can be found anywhere in an organisation and is not the sole preserve of commissioned staff officers from a certain background. That's why issues of class in the Army are so important.

So sorry to disagree, Terry. And sorry to disagree, Chris: class is important in explaining not just SAD, but the British Army's efficiency as a fighting unit. Success on the battlefield is as much a question of social organisation as anything else.

Something else for Saturday night!

[Jonathan Saunders]

Annette I should have course ended by saying that these are my personal conclusions to date and you should continue to search for your own and defend them as you see fit.

[Greenwoodman]

I expect old soldiers lined the route of his funeral for many different reasons, some in blinding respect due to the class system that existed at the time, others perhaps to salute him as if they were saluting their old comrades, friends etc that didnt come back. I expect others through curiosity. I dont think you can use attendance as a measure at all 

Signals, with the greatest respect, I think it is unfair to the memory of those old soldiers that you "expect" that the reasons they lined the route would fit in with your theories. There are no doubt many soldiers who might have said "Good riddance", but I'm sure none of them would have attended.

I am equally sure that their experiences on the Western Front and at other places would have given old soldiers a sufficiently jaundiced view of life not to show up for any of your expected reasons, particularly if they felt that Haig had been responsible for the deaths of their mates.

[Jonathan Saunders]

I certainly didn’t intend my choice of words to be disrespectful to the memory of old soldiers but I wanted to point out that I believe there can be many explanations why old soldiers lined the route of Haig’s funeral cortege and it should not be taken as proof of their approval to Haig’s role as CinC. As an example Prince Charles opened a rebuilt church across the road from where I work a month or so ago – the original had been blown up by the IRA 10 years ago – people crowded windows and left buildings in nearby side streets to view this. People did this for different reasons, inquisitiveness, it was high profile, they belonged to the church, they were in the proximity, they viewed their attendance as a stand against terrorism etc (I know this as I actually asked some work colleagues when they returned there reasons for going – not having bothered myself). This is admittedly a different scenario but I can assure you all of those that watched this opening were not Royalists.

In my opinion when you consider how Haig was measured by soldiers of all ranks, then I think the words of the WW1 poets, the officers, the rankers and the Empire soldiers are hard to dismiss and many of those I have read are far from complimentary.

Again I am sorry my original posting was considered disrespectful but I hope I have now been clearer in the point I was trying to put across.

I must also admit to finding the whole argument about Haig hard to resist so I apologies if I am becoming boring on this subject.