Haig

[AndyHollinger]

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

Why not be the 100th post to this string?

My feelings here are the same when I am encumbered in some long argument about Lee and the Confederacy. Many new historians berate him for "bleeding the Confederacy white" with his aggressive tactics and offensive actions ... well, during the penninsular campaign his predecssors didn't and look where it got them.

We can not refight the war, nor should we. As historians it is our to understand and not to judge in the biblical sense word. Generals fight wars - that's their job and it is not to protect their forces' lives, but husband them and use them to the best advantage. The middle battles of WWI didn't work out as expected and through 20-20 hindsight we make the leadership into diabolical villains ... I believe these men tried and kept trying. If you stop, the other side wins ... giving him peace lets him win and conserve his strength. Each attack was an evolution of effort and tactics - some days it goes well - Vimy - and some days it doesn't -July 1st ... the fact is our side won being led by the guys who had the job.

While we can differ on our critique and judgement of talent ... let's not forget the fact that we won. Could it be done for less? - Maybe ... maybe not.

At the back end of Berton's book Vimy - which I finished today - he remarks that it was a shame the Cavalry wasn't able to exploit the breakout on the Canadian right ... and throws some blame to Haig ... The fact is everything went well on the Canadian right ... check out the Left to see what it could have been.

I guess my biggest point is to keep things in perspective ... it was not we who fought and struggled ... as one who has commanded men - though surely not at any level discussed here - I can tell you that it is a different world. As armchair historians, we often revile the mistakes of those in the field much the same way we snap off answers faster than those on quiz shows ... it's not the same ... not the same at all.

Lee almost won what was an unwinable war ... there is no way politically or economically the South could have done better than simply frustrate the North so much that they wished the war would end. To do that Lee took on armies 4X his size and drubbed them till late 1864 ... not bad ... to blame him for that is rediculous ... should he have surrendered at 7 Pines to save all the bloodshed?

It's the same argumet over Haig's waste of men ... it was what it took to win ... As Theodore Roosevelt would say: "Do what you can with what you have where you are." If you're not the guy there all we can do is try our best to understand.

[Arnie]

William my patriotic friend, when did you last hump 80 lbs thro' secondary jungle, or perhaps lie behind a sanger on a South Arabian Jebal while dissident Arabs pepper you with sniper fire and rocket grenades, when did you carry on a fire fight with IRA or EOKA?

You see my friend I don't know whether or not you have ever seen men blown to smithereens, or even heard a shot fired in anger. It doesn't make you a bad person, just a little naive when you talk about soldiers and patriotism.

Her Majesty didn't think that my patriotism was that bad she decorated me twice.

But then patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels.

It must be so - it's wrong to doubt

The voluntary system's best.

Your conscript, when you've dug him out,

Has not the Happy Warrior's zest.

Because it seemed the thing to do

I joined with other volunteers

But - well, I don't mind telling you

I didn't reckon for three years.

Though we observe the Higher Law

And though we have our quarrel just,

Were I permitted to withdraw

You wouldn't see my **** for dust.

anone - Officer of the Great war

[AndyHollinger]

William my patriotic friend, when did you last hump 80 lbs thro' secondary jungle, or perhaps lie behind a sanger on a South Arabian Jebal while dissident Arabs pepper you with sniper fire and rocket grenades, when did you carry on a fire fight with IRA or EOKA?

You see my friend I don't know whether or not you have ever seen men blown to smithereens, or even heard a shot fired in anger. It doesn't make you a bad person, just a little naive when you talk about soldiers and patriotism.

And because you have, it doesn't entitle you to all the answers, either.

There are many of us on this board ... probably on both sides of this particular argument who have been in harm's way. Perhaps you know more about William than I ... because I don't know him ... but perhaps you do know he's not a vet ... but maybe, he is ... maybe this forum is his recreation from being disabled in any number of conflicts those of us on this board have been committed to ...

Let's stay to the argument and not throw hand grenades at each other, personally.

Maybe it's best to let this string simmer .....

[Archer]

Before we do, Andy ...

As usual, Arnie, you're tilting at windmills!

Please read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote

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.

I couldn't give a fiddler's about your patriotism.

Your way of showing respect to your predecessors in the ranks of the regular British Army is what is at stake here.

Why bother to volunteer to hump 80 lbs thro' secondary jungle, or perhaps lie behind a sangar on a South Arabian Jebal while dissident Arabs pepper you with sniper fire and rocket grenades, or carry on a fire fight with IRA or EOKA, when you have so little respect for an army which learned to fight in modern wars under Haig?

And first learned to fight in secondary jungle, or behind sangars from the men who taught Haig.

William

[Arnie]

Andy

I see a lot of sense in what you say however, when dealing with Haig that is a slightly different kettle of fish

If we always accept that what an individuals does, especially if it is somewhat of a successes as being always right, then the chances of improvement would seem very very slim.

Haig achieved the ascendancy, by influence and intrigue, both against his superiors, his colleagues and any one who he thought was a threat to his advancement.

During the period of soul searching by the British Government after the near debacle of the Boar war, Edward VII demanded that Haig be placed on the Royal Commission, set up to investigate the conduct the Boar war. Many think that this was to protect the Military establishment, against the ravishment of what they considered a Bolshevik (Liberal) Government. Haig effectively ensured that there would be no change to the Cavalry and the Artillery. The introduction of Machine Guns would continue at the rate of 10 per year and there would be little mechanization or at least research into it. All these deficiencies would play a crucial part in the early conduct of the war.

Every battle fought, from 1914 to 1917, in which Haig had control all had one thing in common and that was high casualties with little or no return, proving that Haig learned nothing and forgot nothing. Other generals did at least show they learned the lessons, some more slowly than others, the Colonial Generals, Plummer, Maxse, and to some extent Byng are ones in point. To say that Haig was indispensable and could not be replaced is an insult to the other fighting and more competent Generals.

A man who keeps a diary to the extent that Haig did, would seem to be suspect, especially when it tends to blame others for things going wrong and always taking the credit when things go right, above all when it appears that the projected outcome is written with hind sight.

Finally in 1918 at the time of the Great German Offensive and after fighting tooth and nail for the independence of the British Army, Haig seemed to be in an indecent rush to agree to get the Army under Control of Foch, giving the appearance that he did not want to be associated with what at the time appeared to a British Collapse, hoping that Foch would take responsibility for the expected debacle.

I make no apologise for taking the part of the ordinary soldier for they won the war in spite of Haig not because of him.

Arnie

[Arnie]

I learned to fight in the jungle from men who had learned from Generals who did not commit the same mistakes as Haig. Fighting from behind sangers was used by the army on the mountains of the Northwest frontier in wars that Haig's inefficient cavalry couldn't fight.

Fighting an insurgent wars would have been too subtle for Haig the Butcher. and was taught to the world by men of my generation

Pride in the British Army is quite easy you see, there are no bad soldier only bad officers. I have served with some of the best officers in the Army, many going on to be Generals. William you have no idea what a thinking soldier is all about.

I have also served with officers who always put their career first, even if it meant delaying or even ruining that of some poor NCO/soldiers career.

I have also seen officers write report about gun fights that have been so far away from the truth as to be fairy tales. I have also seen a Lt Col fight a none existent battle over the radio. he went on to be a General

I have also seen an officer try to blame an old soldier for the loss of funds that he had spent, avoiding court martial by being sent sick.

I have also attended a Court Martial where an old ex Japanese POW NCO was charged with an offence involving the daughter of a NCO in the same battalion. He pleaded not Guilty all the way through, but was persuaded to plead guilty to avoid the Girl giving evidence and in return he would receive a minor reprimand. His reward was reduced to Private, 2 years detention, loss of all previous service and discharged.

Yes all the faults of Haig and cronies only it cost good men's lives.

But William you would't know that its not out of 'Boy's Own'

Arnie

PS I have seen no less than four Officers removed from the battalion for what would have been called lack of moral fibre.

PPS You seem to mistake lack of repect for the old officer Corps as disrespect for the Sodiers of the old Army. If you knew what you were talking about you would know the difference.

[AndyHollinger]

Wow ... the thread's tail spin is evident now. From Haig the butcher with questions as to whether or not about "attrition" was an official strategy to once again ... soldiers are good, officers are bad ...

Whether it be labor against management / poor against the rich / democrats against monarchists / enlisted against officers / Plantagenet against ... I guess other Plantagenets / Saxon against Norman / Southerners against Yankees / White against Black ... it's always US versus THEM.

For every story you give about an evil officer, I am sure there are just as many the other way around. For every young officer who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, I'll give you a non-com who was drunk, brutal and, in the end, myopic about himself, his men and his mission. I don't know .... maybe it's in the nature of the beast.

I would also have to say that many times I agree with you ... I hated Westmorland and thought of him as a toady to McNamara and the rest of the well-paid big boys who thought they could win a war of Minds and Hearts with B-52 Carpet bombings ... but I also hated those who say we didn't win because the Politicians kept us from winning. You don't win hearts and minds wars being a foreign army backing the wrong side.

Yup it's always something ... officers have to lead and the rankers have to do ... leaders lose expertise as they rise in the ranks ... and rising in the ranks has more to do with polticial skills than with expertise ... Think of poor Eisenhower who was promoted above - what - approximately 75 more senior people ... why? Because he was a man whom Marshall trusted ... think there's intreque there?

But, again, I'd say it's in the nature of the beast ... as far as I can tell, it's always been this way.

[Archer]

Pride in the British Army is quite easy you see, there are no bad soldier only bad officers.

Normally I might be tempted to agree with that, as a useful simplification. In the context of what you have written in the thread above, however, what you say is complete and utter balderdash.

William you have no idea what a thinking soldier is all about

I know them when I meet them.

I'm surprised you stuck it for 27 years.

Regards anyway

William

[Arnie]

Andy

Thank you for explaining the quote to so simply; ‘Officers are good and soldiers are bad’, but the original quote was; ‘There are no bad soldiers only bad officers’ so I don’t think that is what Napoleon meant. I think you will find that it means that every soldier can be good providing the officers are good.

I’m not against officer’s why should I be, after all I finished in the army as a Captain Quartermaster after coming thro all the ranks including Regimental Serjeant Major. (I even trained US Special Forces at the JWS Malaya).

The point I try to make that the war was won not by Haig’s tactics or strategy but by the staying power, skill and discipline of the British Army. (The fighting part that is). No other army, other than perhaps the German could have taken the mismanagement and lack of concern for their lives by the British General Staff and gone on to win. It was as General Wavell said that the 'British Soldier is not braver than other soldiers, just braver for longer'.

Regarding patriotism which is something close to Williams’s heart I didn’t bring that into the argument. If William would like to prove to me in some way that believing in Haig’s incompetent leadership is in someway patriotic, then I will put my hand up and plead guilty to being unpatriotic

In showing the misdemeanours of the officer corps, I tried to show that some of the weaknesses of Haig’s alleged character are still inherent and officers are not always what they would like to make out. So you saying that you might find similar problems within the same number of soldiers and bullying by NCOs. Apart from there being nearly thirty times as many other ranks in a battalion. This should not happen if officers do their job and that takes us back to Napoleon.

Being on both sides of the social divide William I do know how the British Army works. Writing phoney reports or writing oneself up, does some times advance your career. Leaving your HQ and getting out of contact like Haig and some of is friends did has the advantage that some one else has to make the decisions or even worse the decisions don’t get made, The stolen money is a similar case to the money from the British Legion for Haig’s stately home (replaced by his friends). The Court Martial of the NCO similar tactics to WW1 Court Martial – get them to plead guilty and it’s much easier to shoot them. There is nothing new under the sun especially in the British Army.

In conclusion Andy you seem to be changing your argument ever so slightly, please read the following 'The Great War' By John Terraine, you may have or seen his other book on Haig. I can assure you he is not as comlimentary in this one. Also try and get 'The real War 1914 -1918 by Basil Liddel Hart As you know Hart is probably the most quoted historian of this perid and Gallery at Leeds University in also one of the most used by Military historians

Arnie

[Archer]

A good reply, Arnie.

We must, however, agree to disagree on Haig - and much else besides.

In my view, for whatever it is worth, your views on Haig are outrageously biased.

While I concede that you have read deeply and widely on Haig, your conclusions are so manifestly unreasonable (irrational, perhaps), that I can accept very little, if anything, of what you say about him.

An example of this failing is your argument that the war was won not by Haig’s tactics or strategy but by the staying power, skill and discipline of the British Army.

The argument fails precisely because it ignores (deliberately?) the fact that the staying power, skill and discipline of the BEF were inculcated in its men as a direct result of the strategy of the Commander-in-chief - who happened to be Haig.

The truth about Haig is out there. But I think you are on completely the wrong track - even if you were in the slightest bit interested in finding it out.

As to patriotism - I can only repeat myself - yours is of no concern to me.

But Ross, George and Alf were killed by German troops using German weapons. Not by Haig or anyone else wearing British general officers' uniform.

Not that I expect you to agree.

Regards anyway

William

[Guest Pipits]

I will not pretend to have read all the posts, as they are many, but I want to touch on the original subject of attrition--that of grinding down the enemy. In the static trench warfare of 1914-1918 attrition became the norm--whether it was intended or not--as the defenses of both sides generally proved able to hold off attacks. Hense why one finds the massive bombardments, intented to both wear down the enemy and his defenses--to destory his resources and abilities to attack and defend himself.

Haig cannot truly be called an attritionist, though he used attritionist methods in preparation for his assaults (the Somme, for example, with itsmassive artillery bombardment and huge underground mines). His methods sought to use grand assaults to achive results--assaults which for the most part resulted in mass slaughters partly because of his lack of imagination (Haig rarely sought the use of surprise--nor would he readily accept new weapons such as tanks).

As for the argument that it is the artillery and bullets of the enemy that kills soldiers, it is true. However, the policy of the generals, such as Haig's massive assults at the Somme, did much to dictate how many of those soldiers were put in a position to be killed by those bullets.

Finally, regardless if Haig helped win the war, or if some other General would have been more effecient in winning it, one should reember that the war is over and what is done is done, and we should be thankful that none the worse happened.

---------------

Maybe war would be so much better if the leaders of waring nations got together to fight it out, instead of sending the lives of so many to die for what history usually shows a fruitless cause..

[Robert Dunlop]

Haig cannot truly be called an attritionist, though he used attritionist methods in preparation for his assaults (the Somme, for example, with itsmassive artillery bombardment and huge underground mines). His methods sought to use grand assaults to achive results.

Pipits

You need to distinguish between what is written about Haig's stated intentions before major battles, such as the Somme, and what he thought would actually happen.

Clearly, it would not have promoted the offensive spirit, so beloved of Haig, if he had said something like:- 'We are attacking the Germans on the Somme. I do not expect that we will advance. Our aim is to kill as many Germans as possible. This will not win the war yet. The next few months will only be a part of the long campaign that is necessary to wear the Germans down.'

Robert

[Archer]

Haig ... would [not] readily accept new weapons such as tanks.

And yet, and yet ...

* The British were the first to use them - In Haig's theatre of operations.

* They nearly changed the course of the war (at Cambrai, wasn't it?) - In Haig's theatre of operations.

* The Germans used the intervening years between the Great War and WW2 to learn about the new weapon - after Haig had retired.

All the man deserves (and no one deserves more) is a bit of balance.

William

[AndyHollinger]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate ... (Capt'n in Cool Hand Luke)

Arnie's reference to Napolean brought it to mind ... my mind ... that in some ways we're talking at cross purposes here. Now, that is not to say we're also looking at the question of Haig from several different perspectives as well. We have the Ranker looking up, Officers in awe of command ... realists saying He won and letting the rest fall away ... as well as those in the middle, just trying to interpret their history and use their own judgement/intellect to be "fair."

Re-reading the whole string ... (Yeah, YOU try it! whew!) what we really seem to be arguing is, on the whole the basic crux of History in the higher sense. Not what did Haig do, but what did he mean to do and what we think of it ... IF we think of it as "bad" then did he mean to do it that way or was he somehow negligent of not doing it right and we're trying to think and talk our way through this both with 20-20 hindsight and in spite of it.

As with all history ... we usually can only creep into a man's head by way of what he writes ... but even then we have to figure out what it was he wrote to whom for what to accomplish what objective. I write lectures about my little community college in glowing terms ... however I wouldn't dare compare it to leading colleges ... I love my own almamater Washington and Lee University and think it a fine if not outstanding University ... but sit it next to Oxford ... and well, it pales ... So am I lying or somehow devious when I lecture about my own little community college ... context ... context ... and without me to explain it ... all context is conjecture ...

History is an Art not a Science ...

But Archer got me to thinking ... not that I agree with him or many of his posts here ... and so did William ... with whom I find more agreement in this string.

With the re-election of Lincoln, Lee knew the war was lost. We know or we're pretty sure that he knew this from some of his intimate letters ... there is no doubt he knew the war was lost when he evacuated Petersburg and cetrainly when Richmond was in flames.

Was he immoral to continue fighting till Appomattox a few days later? Did he waste the lives of those few thousands who died between the events of the election till April 9th? Did they die for his pride? His sense of duty ... his ... what? Was it his job to fight on till there was simply no hope of a miracle ... or should have have surrendered the day Lincoln was re-elected and the last real hope of the Confederacy was lost. Should he have disobeyed Jefferson Davis and surrendered or as soon as JD hit the train to Danville, should he have contacted Grant and say enough's enough.

I switch the subject just to get out of the Haig tailspin and raise what I think is the real issue. A commander spends real men's lives. That's his job. It is easy to talk about the real spendthrifts and bad generals ... but the great are not so easy to approach. What we are saying about Haig is that he spent them foolishly and could have spent less and still won ... what we are asking about Lee is whether he spent them out of hubris or a "rightful" duty - whatever that is ...

Wearing down ... attrition ... Trench raiding ... spirit of the offensive ... gas ... tanks ... major battles ... is a battle won or lost to those who die? I think it comes down to winning or losing in the context and reference of the times and technology. There is also something rediculous in asking and trying to judge ... the Winston Churchill of Gillipoli is also the Winston Churchill of the Blitz ... give up one and you give up the other.

[Ste]

.....nor would he readily accept new weapons such as tanks).

Not true, I'm afraid. Haig was intrigued by the tank and it was due to him that they were used as early as they were: 15th September 1916. Others wanted to wait until more tanks were available for a mass assault, but Haig was keen to use them as soon as possible. He accepted them most readily.

S

[PhilB]

Quote (Andy H):-

. A commander spends real men's lives. That's his job.

It`s not the job description I had in mind, Andy. I guess (I don`t know) that his job would be to carry out the instructions given to him by his superior (CIGS, PM?) in a manner most beneficial to the nation. Which means that his job is to conserve the lives of his men as far as possible while pursuing his given aims.

Is Washington Lee the one next door to VMI? Phil B

[Arnie]

Ste

I'm sorry to say this but rubbish!

Haig used the tanks in 1916 out of desperation after the comparative failure of his Somme battle. The tanks used were mainly training machines and the crews were in the most part under training. The armour was to thin and the engines under powered, both these items would have been rectified if the tanks had have been allowed to finish their trials.

The original idea was Churchill's and they were developed by the admiralty because the army would not touch them.

Haig used the tanks against advice and in appropriately, their by loosing the value of secrecy and surprise and would have, if the Germans had chosen to take it, given them a chance to develop their own much earlier.

After the attack at Flers the War Office asked GHQ to write a assessment of the tank. Kiggle (CoS)wrote such a poor report of the its ability and future uses. That the War Office Cancelled the order for a 1000 tanks. Fortunately it was reinstated on the intervention of Churchill and the Prime Minister. This intervention by the PM caused a problem for Haig because he had not included the crews for these tanks in his manpower budget for 1917.

The adoption of the Lewis Gun is a similar tale.

Sorry

Arnie

[PhilB]

Andy, you raise parallels with the conduct of Lee in the War against Attempted Secession. I`ve found myself admiring Grant`s single mindedness in pursuing his strategy despite greater losses than his adversary, while not admiring similar trends in Haig. Am I totally inconsistent or do you see major differences between Grant`s and Haig`s conduct? Phil B

[Arnie]

William

An example of this failing is your argument that the war was won not by Haig’s tactics or strategy but by the staying power, skill and discipline of the British Army.

The argument fails precisely because it ignores (deliberately?) the fact that the staying power, skill and discipline of the BEF were inculcated in its men as a direct result of the strategy of the Commander-in-chief - who happened to be Haig.

The British Army has a long history of pulling its Generals Irons out of the Fire; Inkerman, Paardeburg and Minden spring to mind. But don't take my word for it!

When other Generals make mistakes their armies are beaten; when I get into a hole, my men pull me out of it".

The Duke of Wellington -after Waterloo

One might as well try to charge through a wall".

Napoleon - On St Helena - Regarding the British Infantry

"I saw on this day what had never before been seen and which was impossible of belief, a single column of infantry break through three lines of cavalry, and four brigades of infantry, ranked in order of battle, and tumble them to ruin"

Marshal Contades - French Commander at Minden 1759 after a mistake by the allied Generals and a refusal to charge by Lord Sackville the cavalry commander.

Haig was certainly no Wellington or a Napoleon

The truth about Haig is out there. But I think you are on completely the wrong track - even if you were in the slightest bit interested in finding it out.

You never seem to be able to give me any references. Give me something to read to prove your points and I will as a matter of duty, fairness and patriotism read them. I have read books by Terrain, Neilands, Holmes and the latest and worst apologist, Corrigan. I find that compared to works written shortly after WW1. A catalogue of incomplete statements and quotes and in some cases surprisingly unsound military opinions inserted in place of eye witness accounts.

But Ross, George and Alf were killed by German troops using German weapons. Not by Haig or anyone else wearing British general officers' uniform.

You seem to have the idea that British Soldiers are some sort of cannon fodder to be used indiscriminately. Ross died attacking some uncut barbed wire in a completely futile attack. George and Alf lived until the late 40s when the gas finally killed them. But both had more admiration for their German opponents than they did for the British Staff. You should read anything by Lyn McDonald or 'Eye Deep in Hell' by John Ellis, they both give good indication how the ordinary soldier thought about the enemy, his own officers and staff officers

Read sufficient material and you find little pieces of information regarding Haig's character. When as in the case of McDonald, Wolf, & Keegan etc they are not pursuing any sort of agenda, other than the pursuit for truth. These pieces of information tend to prove many of the accusations made against him.

Could I clarify; the battle of Neuve Chapelle, December 1915. A battle completely planned and conducted by Haig.

1. Included in his order of battle two Batteries 59th & 82nd equipped with 6 inch guns, required to reduce the suspected strong point of Mauquissart. The guns were not even in France and arrived to late and short of equipment. The attack however still went in without the necessary barrage and without any change of plan. Results heavy casualties.

2. During the battle Lyn McDonald says

"At Merville Sir Douglas Haig was at luncheon with his staff, but despite the excellent food ( and wine I suppose -- Arnie), the well appointed table, the discreet service of mess waiters going imperturbably about their duties, it was an anxious meal.

" This at the height of the battle when his subordinate commanders were awaiting for long delayed instructions. No real equality of suffering here then?

3. Later in the battle Haig issued an order of the day to encourage his men in the attack. At the time of receipt, the troops had been driven back by the enemy virtually back to the start line. Showing that Haig's HQ was so out of touch, the subordinate commanders did not show it to the troops out of embarrassment.

The battle was a disaster but Haig wrote to the King blaming French and his having to use TF and New army troops who were under trained. Even though it had been his decision to use them and ignoring their horrendous casualties.

William I agree with Andy we should give this subject a rest unless you have anything to say

Arnie

[Guest Pipits]

We need to remember that Haig was a stout cavalry man, and even after the First World War showed his devotion towards the cavalry by writing:

"I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for 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 have ever done in the past." (1926)

At the Somme Haig was angery at General Rawlinson for not deploying the cavalry units in battle--despite evidence that cavalry tatics were unsuited for the nature of the battle.

While Haig did make use of the tank at the Somme, he was not impressed with the machines (of course, this can be attributed to their lack of numbers and mechanical problems). At Cambrai, where tanks where first used in mass, the original proposal to use tanks was put aside by Haig, despite Lte.Col. Fuller, the commander of the Tank Corps, providing sound tactics for them (as well as the fact that Cambrai's landscape, unlike the Somme or Yrpes where tanks had been used fairly unsuccessfully, was dry and better suited for tanks). It was only because of lack of progress at Passchendale that he conceeded and made allowances for Cambrai--a battle that initially prooved successful but, because the British command over-extended itself, saw much lost in the German counter-offense (which used small unit infaltration tactics that generally were more successful and less costly in manpower than the prefered mass assaults used by the British).

It is true that Haig had his moments, such as the defensive tactics and later his offensive decisions in 1918 which saw considerable gains before the war was over. But when one dwells on the Somme (which admittedly did releave Verdun--though one can only wonder if more troops died at the Somme than were saved at Verdun) and Ypres (where Haig primarily used attrition to grind down the German army, though also ground down his own), it ultimately leaves one to wonder how things would have been had a different course of action been taken.

Sadly, our hindsight on the issue, after the fact, makes it impossible to soundly and comfortably make any conclusions, criticisms or justifications regarding Haig. It is folly for the future to judge the past. Ours is best to learn from it instead of squabble over it.

[AndyHollinger]

Quote (Andy H):-

. A commander spends real men's lives. That's his job.

It`s not the job description I had in mind, Andy. I guess (I don`t know) that his job would be to carry out the instructions given to him by his superior (CIGS, PM?) in a manner most beneficial to the nation. Which means that his job is to conserve the lives of his men as far as possible while pursuing his given aims.

Is Washington Lee the one next door to VMI? Phil B

As to the General's job ... I'd assume your take but he does it by spending or risking the spending of lives.

And yes, VMI is next to us. We're the old school in town - 1747 and they came by after a while (1835, I think) ... While Sheriden provided them with the opportunity to rebuild their school in the 1865s ... we were content to watch them do it. VMI is a school for which I have emmense respect and was on my way there when I fell in love with W&L.

[AndyHollinger]

Andy, you raise parallels with the conduct of Lee in the War against Attempted Secession. I`ve found myself admiring Grant`s single mindedness in pursuing his strategy despite greater losses than his adversary, while not admiring similar trends in Haig. Am I totally inconsistent or do you see major differences between Grant`s and Haig`s conduct? Phil B

Frankly, I've spent some time on this one. I, too admire Grant for winning the war ... but it's a different level of respect and a different type of admiration than I have for Haig.

Grant was an amazing offier for the Northern Armies ... when beaten he refused to admit it and kept going forward. This much is like Haig but he had the room to actually manuver and could at the long end of the campaign actually outflank Lee ... neither of which Haig could do to the Germans. Grant till he got to Petersburg lost more men than Lee had under his command but kept pushing Lee till he was pinned. Once pinned, he simply let the stalemate crush Lee's inferior force and supply. Haig could do neither. After the November election the issue was never in doubt ... Haig had no such help from the political world, nor was Germany in quite the fix that the Confederacy was.

All that said to mitigate the comparison ... Grant was the superior General, I think. His drive to victory and his strategy of Total War against the South was unique and his "command" of Sherman supurb. Grant was a "new" General and had the ability to lead men through hard times and win the war. More than anything else it is at Appomattox and the following few months that make Grant a Hero to me ...

and with that ... my participation on this thread I think is at an end .... let's let Haig rest for a while ...

[Arnie]

Pripit

Could I add a couple of points to you other wise interesting thread.

Haig is purported to be the champion of all the mechanical and scientific advancement to the Army during the war. We have discussed his support of the cavalry, and his disdain for the tank. However, his attitude toward the introduction of the Lewis gun is intresting, Lloyd George requested the armies opinion on the introduction of a portable machine gun. Haig's reply was:-

The machine gun is a much over rated weapon and two per battalion is more than sufficient’ – Haig minute to the war Council 14th April 1915.

Regarding the use of Cavalry at the Somme battle, Two Squadrons (160 men approx) were used on the left wing of the battle. The first time since 1914 that the cavalry were used in a mounted action. Unfortunately, one German Maxim put an end to this dashing endeavour

Arnie

[PhilB]

I found this quote interesting. (Yanks by J.S.D.Eisenhower)

Pershing was struck (in mid 1917) by the brevity of the training period given to British recruits:9 weeks. That short period, the British explained, was sufficient for trench warfare. British recruits were not expected to conduct open warfare. Pershing was puzzled by this complete preoccupation with trench warfare as opposed to maneuver.

This strikes me as preparing men only to be cannon fodder in the real sense of the phrase. Phil B

[crapouillot]

Don't know all about the debate on british army and Haig : but it was a little bit strange to lose so much men in october and november 1917, whereas everybody know that 1918 will be a terrible campaign against enormous german forces coming from the East !

During this time, Pétain and the french staff think mainly to that, and how resist until the arriving us army gave the superiority to allies !! He only fight limited offensive to rebuilt moral with victory, even limited.

Haig seems to use his army more than the german ! this 200 000 or 300 000 men lost during the automn will have been good reserve during Kaiserschlacht ? Even if the second revolution was not launch, it is clear that östfront will let leave a mass of divisions for 1918 : so why the british staff don't take attention to it ?