Haig's book review

[Muerrisch]

It certainly is not military doctrine: one can DENY ground to the enemy by artillery [for as long as you have ammunition, or for as long as the munition remains deadly]. That is neither taking nor holding.

[AndyHollinger]

Artillery can't hold and take ground eh?

What do you think they were firing 'pork pies'

You didn't answer the question.

Even the best artillery officer knows that his job is to keep heads down and destroy hard targets. It doesn't take anything. Until boots are on the objective, you don't control it.

[Terry_Reeves]

Jimmy.

So what happens after the artillery stops firing? You appear to be suggesting that artillery fire instantly neutralises all opposition to the point where it is totally ineffective and that it not so. Artillery is there to support the infantry, not replace it.

Terry Reeves

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

And what happens after the artillery stops firing.

Armistice of course - peace.

Then the bigwigs on both sides were huggin an kissing once more and thinkin of new ways of making money for themselves.

[Kate Wills]

I think you have missed a couple of the steps that lead to an armistice.

[Muerrisch]

And what happens after the artillery stops firing.

Armistice of course - peace.

Then the bigwigs on both sides were huggin an kissing once more and thinkin of new ways of making money for themselves.

Could we could stay fact- and thread- based for this one?

Do you really think, as you wrote, that artillery can take and hold ground? If so, I would be pleased to provide both 1418 and modern doctrine texts which contradict that view, written by experts.

[Anthony Pigott]

Anthony

Well done! does S-D's book mention the altercation with another general in South Africa. I seem to remember I read he drew his revolver an the gentle man in question after his troops had ben let down in battle

Aenie

I've not come across anything like this - have you got a reference or at least a person, time, place, etc. to give me a clue?

Anthony

[Anthony Pigott]

Hello,

I had a look at The Social History of the Machine Gun by  John Ellis (1993 edition). Ellis quotes Haig as having made his comment in a review of a book by Liddell-Hart. The reference given by Ellis for this is a bit unclear  - it is: BH Liddell-Hart, the Tanks, Cassell, London 1959 vol I p 234. Is this Liddell-Hart quoting a review of an earlier book of his by Haig?

KF Kelly

Curious... Has anyone got the Liddell-Hart book?

Anthony

Just trying to get this back on the straight and narrow...

Has anyone got the book? Perhaps I should cross-post in 'Book Reviews'.

Anthony

[Muerrisch]

Going back through this thread, I am prompted to ask just how many cavalry vs machine gun charges there were in the war? Not, as it were, accidental encounters, but deliberate charges. By anyone against enemy machine guns.

As my expertise is narrow and includes neither cavalry nor MGs, I wouldn't know where to start looking.

[armourersergeant]

Well one things for sure you would not send in cavalry against machine guns.

Even sending men over the top week after week against machine guns in the hope they would run out of ammunition eventually wasn't very clever was it.

It was the heavy artillery that won us the war eventually not the needless sacrafice of human life.

Mind you 25 years later they sent in the BEF again, against far superior armaments and we all know what nearly happened then don't we.

I was not aware that hoping the enemy ran out of bullets was a desired for result of the constant attacks that were carriede out. Where have you read that this was the case?

In saying that 'we' sent in the BEF again 25 yrs later is quiet significant. For it shows what i was trying to say in another thread. It is politicians who start wars, soldiers finish them!

If artillery wins wars and then peace follows why are we still deploying troops in Iraq?

regards

Arm.

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

In 1926 Sir Douglas Haig wrote an article about the impact that the First World War had made on military tactics.

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.

Charles Edward Bean, Official History of Australia in the War (1930)

In round figures this period cost the two allies three quarters of a million casualties against half a million on the German side. These figures include the casualties incurred during the latter stages at Verdun and also on quiet parts of the front; but they may safely be assumed to indicate, at least roughly, the proportion of the German loss to that of the Allies in the First Battle of the Somme.

Far from the German loss being the greater, the British Army was being worn down - numerically - more than twice as fast, and the loss is not to be measured by bare numbers. The troops who bore the brunt of the Somme fighting were the cream of the British population - the new volunteer army, inspired by the lofty altruistic ideals traditional in British upbringing, in high purity of aim and single-minded sacrifice probably the finest army that ever went to war. Despite the indignation expressed by one of the higher commanders at the criticism current in England, a general who wears down 180,000 of his enemy by expending 400, 000 men of this quality has something to answer for.

Charles Repington worked as a military correspondent for The Times during the First World War. Repington recorded in his diary a meeting he had with Sir Douglas Haig on 8th July, 1916.

I went by invitation to G.H.Q., which are at Beauquesne, north of Amiens. Haig is living at a chateau in a wood on the right-hand side of the road, a mile along the Marieux road. I found Haig with Kiggell: the latter was very pleasant, but spoke little. Haig explained things on the map. It is staff work rather than generalship which is necessary for this kind of fighting. He laid great stress on his raids, and he showed me on a map where these had taken place. He said that he welcomed criticisms, but when I mentioned the criticisms which I had heard of his misuse of artillery on July 1, he did not

appear to relish it, and denied its truth. As he was not prepared to talk of things of real interest, I said very little, and left him to do the talking. I also had a strong feeling that the tactics of July 1 had been bad. I don't know which of us was the most glad to be rid of the other.

After the war David Lloyd George wrote about General Haig's tactics in his war memoirs.

It is not too much to say that when the Great War broke out our Generals had the most important lessons of their art to learn. Before they began they had much to unlearn. Their brains were cluttered with useless lumber, packed in every niche and corner. Some of it was never cleared out to the end of the War. They knew nothing except by hearsay about the actual fighting of a battle under modern conditions. Haig ordered many bloody battles in this War. He only took part in two. He never even saw the ground on which his greatest battles were fought, either before or during the fight.

The tale of these battles constitutes a trilogy, illustrating the unquestionable heroism that will never accept defeat and the inexhaustible vanity that will never admit a mistake. It is the story of the million who would rather die than own themselves as cowards - even to themselves - and also of the two or three individuals who would rather the million perish than that they as leaders should own - even to themselves - that they were blunderers. Ought I have vetoed it? Ought I not to have resigned rather than acquiesce in this slaughter of brave men? I have always felt there are solid grounds for criticism in that respect. My sole justification is that Haig promised not to press the attack if it became clear that he could not attain his objectives by continuing the offensive.

George Coppard, With A Machine Gun to Cambrai (1969)

Historians say that Haig had the confidence of his men. I very much doubt whether this was strictly true. He had such a vast number of troops under his command and was so completely remote from the actual fighting that he was merely a name, a figurehead. In my view, it was not confidence in him that the men had, but simply their ingrained sense of duty and obedience, in keeping with the times. They were wholly loyal to their own officers, and that was as far as their confidence went. It was trust and comradeship founded on the actual sharing of dangers together.

I was demobbed a few days after my 21st birthday, after four and a half years of service. My leg had shrunk a bit and I was given a pension of twenty-five shillings per week for six months. Dropping to nine shillings per week for a year, the pension ceased altogether.

During this time the government, in the flush of victory, were busily engaged in fixing the enormous sums to be voted as gratuities to the high-ranking officers who had won the war for them. Heading the formidable list were Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig and Admiral Sir David Beatty. For doing the jobs for which they were paid, each received a tax-free golden handshake of £100,000 (a colossal sum then), an earldom and, I believe, an estate to go with it. Many thousands of pounds went to leaders lower down the scale. Sir Julian Byng picked up a trifle of £30,000 and was made a viscount. If any reader should ask, 'What did the demobbed Tommy think about all this?' I can only say, 'Well, what do you think?'

[Muerrisch]

JK: These are good quotations and make a powerful case. I expect others can deal with them more adequately, but I believe that the time of the "DH was useless" 100% certainty is, in my opinion, drawing to an end.

Clearly, Haig was wrong on the future of cavalry. But clearly LG was not unbiased re. DH, most would accept that. Bean did not point out that the German Army was more worn down by the 1916 offensives than the British, which was a German opinion. And comments from the ranks, including officers, can be found to prop up the Haig supporters equally well.

Are you saying given that, with Haig not in command of the British Army, we would have won earlier? Or less expensively regarding casualties? Or are you saying that the Army won despite him?

Surprisingly, I am more-or-less neutral on DH: it never ceases to amaze me how much criticism he continues to attract. His duty was to win, and however we look at might-have-beens, he did just that. He would not attract many British supporters if UK were now a province under a successor of the Kaiser.

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

As Lloyd George said, Haig ordered many bloody battles in this War. He only took part in two. He never even saw the ground on which his greatest battles were fought, either before or during the fight.

And thats your ex Prime Minister.

[armourersergeant]

JK,

I find it very unlikely that Haig would admit, even to ex military, that he had got his artillery wrong or that it had not worked. He hated and distusted Politicians and i expect though do not now that he distrusted the media as much. He may well given his puritan stance have not like Repington as well.

You use Repington, Bean and Coppard as your proof. Certainly Repington and Bean wrote i believe in critical terms of Haig and as such have to be classed as anti Haig men. So these are not really unpartial examples, if such a thing exists!, Coppard whilst a good read and in my opinion very truthful and well written was to my knowledge written later in life and perhaps written with a hindsight perspective. If he was a reader he may have read the authors such as Liddel Hart and Fuller and been infleuenced by these authors.

Having read Coppard i did not come away from his book with a feeling that he felt an animosity to Haig or those above him but then perhaps i should read it again and i am open to correction on this matter.

As for Lloyd George, he certainly can not be classed as impartial and fair. Just ask General Maurice as to the honesty of the mans word!

I would also have thought that trying to see the ground his troops fought on would not be viable and also i would assume he did have access to arial photos.

I do not mean to come across as a Haig defender , as i am not, but i have to say that whilst we have God or Demon camps we will never get to the truth about him.

regards

Arm.

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

What you mean we will never get the truth about him most of the people who slagged him off above were pillars of the establishment.

Haig would of come out on top in the History books (as in this forum) if it had of just been the ordinary Tommy slagging him off.

Here were respected members of society who were sickened by the gaul of the man and his treatment of his charges.

Are we just to pass them people off as liars.

This is his own ilk condemning the man.

[Robert Dunlop]

So, Commander-in-Chief Knacky, you have been appointed in Haig's place. I gather you are unhappy with his current residence. Where will you station yourself?

Your views about going onto the defensive are well known by now. I gather the Germans are already withdrawing divisions for the Eastern Front. It looks like they may go for an early knock-out blow there. What do you think their chances of success might be? If they so suceed, what do you think the 'peace terms' with the Russians might look like? What do you think they will do after that?

The French government have gone ballistic. I gather Lloyd George might be under some pressure. Might he want to send more of your troops to Macedonia? Or somewhere else? What might his response be if the pressure from the French is very severe?? What will your response be to that? Joffre is on his way over to meet you. Should be an interesting meeting.

As part of the conditions of your appointment, you asked about when the Americans might be involved. It seems highly unlikely. They have no desire to get into this war anyway. Certainly not to bail you out. Why should they plan to take casualties when you are not prepared to - this was the tenor of the message from the Secretary-of-State.

Our readers are very interested to learn what your thoughts are on these issues, Field Marshal Knacky.

Robert

[Kate Wills]

Beating the Russians theirs no chance.

We'll just get the shuttering joiners in and build some concrete bunkers while the germans are away.

A bunker is a defensive position. How will you attack when the Germans arrive from Russia?

>>>>>>>>

And build up our machine gun battalions (a machine gun for every man if possible)

Machine guns were operated by three-man teams. Are you going to order steroids and introduce weight-lifting sessions to enable EACH man to carry a machine gun?

>>>>>>>>>

We will get a few more big guns over from Vickers at Newcastle.

Now why am I not surprised that Tyneside industry will benefit in your plans!

>>>>>>>>>>>

Some decent clothing for the men and some decent boots a bit like that fellow Haigs wearin.

Oh good! Something for Northamptonshire industry too! Thankyou my-duck.

>>>>>>>>

Sell all the cavalry horses to the french cos they like the old horse meat.

I'll ignore that one!

>>>>>>>>>>

Oh and some tin hats like them germin gadgies have got.

You mean you want a different design? Our blokes have got tin hats already.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Loads of rum and baccy.

Some stottie cakes for the NF.

A few regional reminders from home is a good move.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

And once we got things up and running in the next 6 months.

We won't need any reinforcements so Churchill can have as many men as he likes for the Med.

And tell Joffre i'm too busy as i'm arranging leave for the men (some of the poor buggas been here since 1st Mons you know)

What the Americans not joining us that's jolly hard lines (more for us to share out at the end of the war)

Yi daft bugga yi what do yi want is to say.

>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure we are any closer to Berlin!

[armourersergeant]

What tin hats (that was summer 1915)

And Haig took over GHQ when?

Arm.

[Kate Wills]

Jimmy

You were the one who mentioned machine-guns and tin-hats. I merely asked you to expand and explain your thoughts, as you had included these items in your wish list for winning the war - or at least that is what I thought you were doing in your post. If I have misunderstood, I offer my apolgies.

I have to say, that while I have no strong thoughts either way on Haig, many of his detractors seem to think that the Germans were not actively thwarting whatever plans he had for winning the war. Maybe it is just me, but I am finding this exchange increasingly frustrating, and not (for once) because of its subject matter.

[armourersergeant]

Christ man do you eat an sleep statistics.

Di yi have to take everything I say so serious.

Right back to your little game.

Am in charge not Haig ahve sent him home with a flea in his ear.

My turn to apologise this time , I thought you were engaged in a serious discussion, obviously my mistake.

Your game i believe, not mine!

Arm.

[Kate Wills]

Jimmy

Robert asked you a serious question. I thought you were obliging him with a serious answer. Bearing in mind the amount of time and energy you have expended on this subject, and your extreme antipathy for Haig, I don't think I can be chided for accepting your post as your considered thoughts on the matter.

I did not quote statistics - I would barely know how, and they can be manipulated anyway. Mentioning the FACT that three men were required to operate one machine gun does not constitute a statistic.

I am grown-up, as is virtually everyone else here; and I can generally spot a joke at 200 yards. If you are going to participate in this thread, please show due consideration to those who are attempting to develop the subject under discussion.

[Kate Wills]

OK Jimmy PAX. I wish I could meet you in cyber-space for a game of footie and a few carols.

Right folks back on track. Subject Sir Douglas Haig...

[Anthony Pigott]

... Right folks back on track. Subject Sir Douglas Haig...

Or specifically, what he might have said about the future of horses

[Guest Jimmy Knacky]

Douglas Haig (and Lloyd George)

from Manchester Evening News November 1998

Blood on their hands.

Haig, the commander-in- chief of British forces on the Western Front during the First World War; is still honoured in the Poppy Appeal though arguably he killed as many of his own men as Stalin and Hitler put together.

Lloyd George who, as prime minister, cowardly kept him on in spite of railing privately at the incompetent as a bloody waster of young British lives, is to have a statue put up to him. There should be no statue to Lloyd George. No self respecting sculptor should accept the commission. And it is time the British Legion removed Haig's loathsome name from the poppy fund.

It was right to do reverence this week on the 80th anniversary of the 1918 armistice to the hundreds and thousands of soldiers whose bones lie in foreign battlefields. However I could not help feeling, throughout the solemn commemorations, that it really is time for a universal acknowledgement that these brave men were the victims of idiots and of psychopaths.

No one summed up the lunacy better than Thomas Hardy, still going strong in his 80s during the massacres, in his marvellous poem, Channel Firing, in which he imagined the dead in a Dorset graveyard shaken from their coffins by the bombardments in distant France and Flanders.

"All nations striving to make/Red war redder Mad as hatters/they do no more for Christ's sake than you who are helpless in such matters."

It is still erroneously described as the first modern war. It was, in fact, the last war fought on feudal values and with an anachronistic medieval strategy.

The young men who volunteered to fight were not very different, in their deferential attitudes, from their 14th century ancestors, summoned from the harvesting to join in the brawls of their lords. They thought their lords knew what they were doing. Four years of attrition in the trenches was to teach them a dreadful and embittering truth.

Haig kept thousands of horses on stand-by throughout the war. The Navy supplied more ships to fodder them than ships carrying men and munitions were sunk by German submarines.

Haig, contemptuous (or possibly ignorant) of the scything effects of the machine-gun, believed the Germans could be overwhelmed by infantry advancing with flintlock rifles, followed up by glorious cavalry charges.

He first put the initial stage of this theory to the test at the Battle of the Somme. On July 1, 1916, 13 British divisions marched towards the enemy like ceremonial troops down Whitehall, led by subalterns blowing whistles and clutching one-shot revolvers. At the end of the day 19,000 lay dead.

Brothers fell alongside brothers, fathers alongside sons. Towns, such as Colne and Ashton-under-Lyne, were overnight denuded of men of procreative age. Hardly a home in long, Milltown streets was not in mourning.

Haig, surveying the carnage from a French chateau miles behind the front, where once he boasted of never getting his boots wet, remained wistful for his horses.

He went on ordering suicide waves until November when so many men were drowning in mud, that even he thought it wise (temporarily) to call it a day The resumed slaughter was, of course, to continue for another two years.

Did any good at all come out of the First World War? Far from being the war to end all wars, it turned out to be the prologue to the longest and bloodiest in world history. Would Hitler have built his Third Reich in 1933 had Germany not been humiliated by the Allies at Versailles in 1918? Would six million have perished in gas chambers?

One indirect benefit was that the working-class began to grow up and to realise that the jingo swell with the lardy-dah voice and a chestful of medals was very likely ripe for a lunatic asylum.

By 1939, even the bishops and the generals conceded that war, even when unavoidable, was a thoroughly bad thing. But one can never be satisfied that Britain's rulers have thoroughly digested the lesson of the Somme while they hanker to put Lloyd George on a plinth and still keep Earl Haig on a poppy-seller's collecting box.

WHILE researching this column, I discovered that Lloyd George spent 10 days after the Armistice in the Lord Mayor's bed at Manchester town hall. The goatish prime minister lay for once, on his own. He had contracted flu during a speaking tour and was in no state to frolic with anyone.

The flu he got was of the virulent strain which in 1918 swept the globe, killing several million more people than the First World War. I cannot help thinking that it would have been kinder to Lloyd George's reputation if, instead of living on to 1945, he had died in the Lord Mayor's parlour. As it was, he became a silly and interfering old man, one of the appeasers who sucked up to Hitler.

He was born in Manchester - of which no Mancunian should be proud, If there has to he a statue to Lloyd George, it must not be in Albert Square.

[Muerrisch]

I knew I shouldn't have bothered in this thread.

I still wonder what JK would have done differently, given the fact that DH was trying to defeat the best army in the world with a handful of regulars, the survivors of the new armies, and a bunch of conscripts.

Amazingly, he managed it. Dreadful incompetent leader that he was.

Now I am retiring from this waste of time. Shoot me if I come back.