Haig

[Edward_N_Kelly]

Well - 'tis time for me to put in my 2d worth I suppose....

Haig (and his cohorts) were no worse "bunglers and butchers" than any of their contemporaries. All had their "pet theories" as to how the war was to be conducted and all learned how it should be done or fell by the wayside - though the learning curve was costly in personnel and material.

The BEF of 1914 was not that of 1918 - sheer size and battle experience in the toughest arena ensured that ! It is the same for others of the Allied or Central Powers though the latter were suffering from manpower, material and morale disadvantages.

It must be remembered that Haig and the BEF never lost its morale - even during the horrors of Passchendaele or the problems of 1918 the arms units were prepared to continue the fray to the end. Services were maintained during the same period and the arms were never at a loss for food, ammunition or material.

As to Haig as a "butcher and bungler" - even Lloyd George was somewhat ambivalent. At times he looked on Haig with favour while on others he was less forthcoming (though I note that his worse vitriol was reserved for when Haig was safely dead). Haig was an optimist – always seeking the “end battle”, the one that would end it all. He drove Armies to achieve it but through a lack of understanding by both himself and the various levels of staff, the ability of unaided muscle to get past the obstacles the enemy and his technology and the weather was poorly understood – but it was by all participants.

Haig was seen rather like Lloyd George (was to become) and later Churchill (in the second innings) – the indispensable “idea” of the war in his field. Like these he suffered after his wartime services were no longer required…..

Anyway - where was there someone who could have replaced Haig ? Of the senior British Army or equivalent commanders there were few indeed that could have handled that most exquisite mix of politics (both civil and military) and military command that Haig had to endure....

By March 1918 Byng and Horne were uninspiring (though competent), Birdwood was newly promoted from a Corps, Rawlinson had some question marks over him (even if only because he was thick with Wilson), Gough was out of his depth (and good riddance to him too!), Plumer (a possibility but again with some question marks over his politics), Allenby was still to prove himself after at best a competent display on the Western Front and a fair bit of luck at Beersheba, Wilson was a most dangerous creature (politically and militarily). As to the Corps commanders - no matter how good they were they needed to be proven in that next step.....

Cheers

Edward

[AndyHollinger]

I think there is little point in continuing this discussion, you revisionists are like Haig himself could learn nothing and could forget nothing.

It would be a pity if it had to end like that.

William

It won't (end like that) ... when a history buff or historian (there is a difference) gets all flustered he throws the charge of "Revisionist" and thinks its like calling people some level of PC liar or historical cheat. Little does he know (or maybe he does) that the very nature of the historical profession demands "Revisionism" ... otherwise how would one get publish (promoted, keep their jobs, etc.) by publishing "what he/she said"

History is not science ... it is art - and like art there is some that you appreciate and some you don't ... some that is meaningful to you and some that gets lost like Pollard (and one has to ask if it's real or just a way to sell canvas and color - and it beats working!) ... it grows and forms "schools" and evolves and dies away ...

History becomes like religion ... a truth we know ... know beyond the facts. Yet, like religion, it is based on facts but supported by judgements and beliefs ... History is the presentation of the truth based on these facts which we in our "wisdom" filter and prioritize.

When we "argue" or "discuss" sometimes we learn, sometimes we hone our opinions and sometimes we mistakenly believe that others, upon hearing the truth of our words, will fall on their face and see the light ... sometimes we think that OUR view will be the "Saul Pill" that will instantly transform one who was something else into the Apostle Paul ... and that rarely happens.

This thread is a good example of what we are and what we're not. We are a group of highly informed people who have much to add to a discussion. We enjoy listening and learning and adding our .02 to the mix ... some people believe they have the answer ... the whole answer ... and if they can just tell us ... we'll see the error in our ways and believe as strongly as they do ... and if they don't ... well, they refuse to see ...

The diatribe above is one of those moments when someone get finished with the sermon to end all sermons and the room is instantly quiet and the "nice" people are all silently searching for something to say about the weather, soccer, football or something banal to break the silence while the speaker's wife turns red from embarrassment.

My father ... well into his dotage ... and living in a "home" now ... tells me that they have a rule ... when all the guys meet for most their day in the "front" room and discuss things - the rule is that nothing about the Korean War or newer is allowed ... in his words ... "Things just get to angry for a conversation to continue" so they talk about Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, and compare Ike to Patton and whether the officers really knew anything at all ... interestingly, having listened to one or two of these sessions ... the stories steer away from the action these guys saw and dwell, instead, upon the common experiences - not the fighting ... I think it's because those who had them will never deal with all the sharp edges left behind.

We, on this board, have no such rule and even though WWI might seem safely old and resolved ... it isn't to us - well, some of us and we go on. (and on, and on) ... there are some here with an axe to grind and points to make. The beauty is that on the board, we can just turn the notification off and let the string go happily along to those that want to continue the fray.

I, for one, love this board and enjoy much of the learning experience it continually gives me ... and except for certain sancro-sanct people tolerate it well ... because for me it gives meaning behind the stone and words of the Edinburgh memorial, and the Menin Gate ... and Tyne Cot ... and all the rest. To most of today's world, I am the strange one ... who cares and photographs the memorials found in train stations or in forgotten sections in parks ... but here ... well, I am just one of the boys ...

So, the discussion will not end even if one of our number (we don't restrict ... well, too much ... who gets to talk) and when one of us gets too hot under the collar ... there's a silence and then someone will come up with that comment about Manchester United or the Bosox and the noise will merrily resume ... till it all happens again ....

[Archer]

What a fantastic, wise post. Thank you

[Guest bonza]

Arch Baby!

It's not a picture of a Post. That's Andy near the Meinin Gate at Midday

[Archer]

Bonza you're going berko!

I'm not an Arch Baby, I'm a dinkum Post Boy!

William

[Guest bonza]

William

Fair comment!! Paddy was too

ooRoo

Pat

[AndyHollinger]

Arch Baby!

It's not a picture of a Post. That's Andy near the Meinin Gate at Midday

Try the main entrance of the Scottish War Memorial in Edinburgh Castle.

My avatar is of Lauren and I at the Menin Gate ...

[Guest bonza]

My avatar is of Lauren and I at the Menin Gate ...

G'day agen Andy!

Well i got that one wrong too, mate.

I have absolutely no doubt that there would be no risk in "observing" that your visit to The Menin Gate with Lauren would remain as one of your most cherished memories. I genuinely hope that Edinburgh proved another rewarding experience.

I too, have a very soft spot for the Menin Gate. You may think the continuing saga of the extra " I " in your original post is trivial in the extreme. That's not the case with me. The word is almost sacred, and ranks with Anzac in my vocab, and so....

Then just when you think its safe to go back in the water,

"me 'n Lauren" may have been closer to the right than " I 'n Lauren"

Then again, there may be very few who know, and even fewer who care, about what we are on about!

ooRoo

Pat

MY final avatar is the Menin Gate at Midnight

[Robert Dunlop]

Whether the supporters of Haig like it or not every battle fought by Haig up to and including Paechiondale ended up as battle of attrition.

Of course Lloyd George was aware of Haig's policy of attrition and tried to soften the effects of it by denying Haig reinforcements.

To enlist the support of the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet certain Guarantees were given, none of these Guarantees were kept

I came across the following in Powell's book on General Plumer:

'On 1 May [1917, Haig] noted in his diary the outline of a letter he had that day sent by King's Messenger to the War Cabinet:

"The enemy has already weakened appreciably, but time is required to wear down his great numbers of troops. The situation is not yet ripe for the decisive blow. We must therefore continue to wear down the enemy until his power of resistance has been further reduced.

The cause of General Nivelle's comparative failure appears primarily to have been a miscalculation in this respect, and the remedy now is to return to wearing-down methods for a further period, the duration of which cannot yet be calculated. I recommend that the pause which is forced upon us in vigorous offensive operations is utilised to complete measures for clearing the coast this summer. Success seems reasonably possible."'

'In his post-war denigration of Haig, Lloyd George made no mention of this memorandum written by Haig.'

'Lloyd George had, in fact, given support to Haig's revised concept for the Flanders fighting. At a conference in Paris on 4 May between the military representatives of France and Britain, among whom was Petain, it was agreed that there was now no hope of rupturing the enemy front, and that the object must be to exhaust his powers of resistance. Later the same day and on the next, Lloyd George approved this policy at a general Inter-Allied Conference, the basis of which had been written into Haig's memorandum. "The enemy," the Prime Minister informed the conference, "must not be left in peace for one moment... we must go on hitting and hitting him with all our strength until the Germans ended, as they always do, by cracking."'

Robert

[PhilB]

The following appeared on a BBC website.

'Kill more Germans' summarised Haig's strategy as Commander in chief of the British forces in France during most of World War One. His war of attrition resulted in enormous numbers of British casualties and his leadership remains controversial.

I wonder:-

1/ Was this ever "official" policy?

2/ If so, when did it become the strategy?

3/ Could Haig decide on such a policy without the approval of the PM of the time?

Phil B

Thanks, Robert. It would seem then that the answers to the original questions are:-

1/ Yes.

2/ Early 1917.

3/ He had it anyway.

Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

2/ Early 1917.

Phil

I think it was probably earlier. I will check.

Robert

[PhilB]

It seems mindboggling to me that Haig, Robertson, LlG or whoever, could calmly sit down and agree that the war could go on and on with casualties which they must have known would be millions. Particularly as they were the guardians of the nation`s welfare. Was any serious attempt ever made to reach a political settlement? Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

Prior to the start of Third Ypres, Haig predicted to Lloyd George that there would be 100,000 casualties per month.

Do you mean a political settlement with Germany?

Robert

[PhilB]

Thanks, Robert.

100,000 per month! And how long did Haig forecast the war continuing?

I meant a settlement with Germany. Shouldn`t have been too difficult to arrange, bearing in mind the relationship between the Kaiser`s and KGV`s families! What did we stand to lose that was worth another million or two casualties?

Especially when many would have been like this:-

The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, the eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. This was extremely painful and most soldiers had to be strapped to their beds. It usually took a person four or five weeks to die of mustard gas poisoning. One nurse, Vera Brittain, wrote: "I wish those people who talk about going on with this war whatever it costs could see the soldiers suffering from mustard gas poisoning. Great mustard-coloured blisters, blind eyes, all sticky and stuck together, always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke."

[AndyHollinger]

Prior to the start of Third Ypres, Haig predicted to Lloyd George that there would be 100,000 casualties per month.

Do you mean a political settlement with Germany?

Robert

It would seem we're getting off into the diabolical ... where is that figure 100K a month documented in the context of a forever ... c'mon guys no two humans could have that conversation.

***************

By 1917 there was no possibility for political settlement just like Ieper couldn't be evacuated for a better tactical position. The cost of the meatgrinder was victory or nothing. Wilson provides the 14 points - which makes sense and nobody in Europe took him seriously ... why ... because just as WW would later say to the American public in defense of the League ...

"Your boys died for something that vastly transends the outcome of the war" A poltical settlement would never fly ... Victory or nothing.

[Robert Dunlop]

'On 19 June [1917, Haig] had warned the Prime Minister that he estimated that casualties on the Western Front would be 100,000 monthly, although he hoped that the figure would be less'. Quoted by Powell in his book on Plumer.

Haig was referring to losses in relation to Third Ypres and its associated actions, such as the attacks on Lens. Not the duration of the war. Charteris had compiled figures though that projected the effects of attritional warfare.

As you point out, there were opportunities for a political settlement. The outcome always hinged on what was deemed an 'acceptable' settlement.

Robert

[GTS]

Of course the irony of it all is the fact that WW1 did end ( or at least appeared to end ) with a political settlement. Whilst defeat was probably inevitable, the Armistice allowed many Germans to consider that they had not been defeated, merely fought to a draw. After all, they still had a vast army in the field and had not been invaded.

It was this perceived political settlement that gave the Nazis so much ammunition in their rise to power and in the build up to WW2

[Arnie]

I have read that the Germans offered a settlement in 1917, which would have been in accord with the original British war aims. The Politicians and generals would not hear of it. Absolute victory being the only end to the fighting.

This offer by the Germans was never made public.

[Archer]

Welcome back to the fray, Arnie

The political settlement which the Germans offered would have had to address their war guilt. (You do recall that they invaded Belgium and France?)

I seem to remember (that's poor authority, I concede) that the kybosh on the settlement was that France could not accept the terms.

You write "The Politicians and generals would not hear of it. " I wonder. More likely "the politicans would not hear of it."

More work needed on this one, Arnie!

And now ...

A general comment to the 5000+ Pals:

Whenever Haig is slagged off, I groan inwardly. What it means is that modern-day Poms are ashamed of the general who won the war for them and unwilling - retrospectively - to bear the horrendous human cost in dead and wounded.

Which is all very well.

But Britain went to war to honour its treaty obligations and to limit German expansionism. In geopolitical terms Kaiser Bill was the Saddam Hussain of his day. But much more effective. He really did start a world war.

France was saved from being overrun and destabilised, the war was won, the men and women in the forces died in the cause of their country.

We owe all of them - and Haig - some respect for what they, and he, did.

If you must slag someone off for the British war dead, try the Serbian hotheads, or the Austrian emperor or Kaiser Bill or the German generals.

German shells, bullets, mines and gas killed your ancestors - not General Haig.

The best political settlement the Germans could offer was to stop killing the Allies and to withdraw into Germany. No one would have stopped them doing that.

William

[AndyHollinger]

Welcome back to the fray, Arnie

The political settlement which the Germans offered would have had to address their war guilt. (You do recall that they invaded Belgium and France?)

I seem to remember (that's poor authority, I concede) that the kybosh on the settlement was that France could not accept the terms.

You write "The Politicians and generals would not hear of it. " I wonder. More likely "the politicans would not hear of it."

More work needed on this one, Arnie!

And now ...

A general comment to the 5000+ Pals:

Whenever Haig is slagged off, I groan inwardly. What it means is that modern-day Poms are ashamed of the general who won the war for them and unwilling - retrospectively - to bear the horrendous human cost in dead and wounded.

Which is all very well.

But Britain went to war to honour its treaty obligations and to limit German expansionism. In geopolitical terms Kaiser Bill was the Saddam Hussain of his day. But much more effective. He really did start a world war.

France was saved from being overrun and destabilised, the war was won, the men and women in the forces died in the cause of their country.

We owe all of them - and Haig - some respect for what they, and he, did.

If you must slag someone off for the British war dead, try the Serbian hotheads, or the Austrian emperor or Kaiser Bill or the German generals.

German shells, bullets, mines and gas killed your ancestors - not General Haig.

The best political settlement the Germans could offer was to stop killing the Allies and to withdraw into Germany. No one would have stopped them doing that.

William

Hear Hear! Great post.

[Max]

Great post William. I have wanted to say that for quite a while but have just not been able to find the words.

Andy

[Arnie]

I believe the offer was to withdraw to pre 1914 boundaries which of course included Alsace and Lorraine. The British would have in fact got what they set out to achieve i.e. getting the Germans out of Belgium and France. The settlement was not acceptable to the French they wanted revenge for the 1870 war.

The whole deal was not made public for the fear that the people would demand an end to the war. The generals wanted to defeat the Germans in the field of course they did not have to do the fighting.

The Germans when killing our men were doing their job. It was the Generals job to be sparing of their men's lives. Haig and company never were.

[Arnie]

Andy

Nice picture, however Has my Grandad used to; 'They put that B-----d on a horse, he should be on his bloody knees begging forgivness of the poor B-----s he slaughtered.

Arnie

[Archer]

The Germans when killing our men were doing their job. It was the Generals job to be sparing of their men's lives. Haig and company never were.

Nonsense, Arnie.

It is altogether too rich - too rich by half - to argue, as you do, that when the Germans killed the allied troops they were merely doing their 'job,' while at the same time implying that the entire blame for allied deaths should be laid at the door of 'Haig and company.'

It is a caricature of the truth which I for one find unacceptable.

Secondly, the Generals' job was NOT to be sparing of their men's lives - it was to fight the enemy and defeat him by all means possible.

Trained fighting men [and women] were an immensely valuable resource to be conserved and deployed to maximum effect.

Every time an enemy fires a weapon the chances are that someone on your side will lose his or her life. It follows that if the Pom generals had run around 'sparing' their men, there'd have been no fighting, and the Germans would rule the world.

You may not be a patriot, Arnie - that's your choice.

You certainly seem to have very little pride in the achievements of your predecessors in the ranks of the regular British Army, and scant regard for those regulars, volunteers and conscripts who did their duty, who fought and who died.

William

[Guest]

I have read that the Germans offered a settlement in 1917, which would have been in accord with the original British war aims. The Politicians and generals would not hear of it. Absolute victory being the only end to the fighting.

This offer by the Germans was never made public.

I'm only aware of one "peace without victory" offer made by Germany in 1917, and this was unsuccessful as it was it was squashed by the German government, particularly the Diabolic Duo. (Herwig in the "The First World War", covers it.) Is this what you are refering to?