Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Not having a go at you, Mike. Sorry for any offence. I am just amazed at the obsession with dead people. Absolutely none taken. I suppose the number of dead is one of few resources of measure we have, but, I agree that the number of dead are not an accurate way to measure a given commander's abilities. There are many other factors that influence the number of dead. The terrain, weather, quality of medical care available, number of enemy guns, men, their morale etc etc etc. Mike A wee quick edit there from moral to morale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Not having a go at you, Mike. Sorry for any offence. I am just amazed at the obsession with dead people. Incidentally, one of the "Great Captains" was Napoleon. He did a pretty fine job of killing lots of Frenchmen. And isn't it remarkable how devoted his soldiers were to him ? Likewise with General Lee. Both these commanders exposed their soldiers to extreme levels of combat intensity and bloodshed, and both were beloved. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 I note that Alan Clark's "The Donkeys" was also first published in 1961 - the year that Hankey's memoirs were published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 I seem to recall John Terraine having a dig at Bony - criticising the fact that he often fought with one eye on the horizon hoping that the rest of his army would arrive in time to save the day? Didn't happen at Waterloo. Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Here is the opening paragraph from Wikipedia for "Lions led by Donkeys" " "Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of World War I and to blame the generals who led them. The contention is that the brave soldiers (lions) were sent to their deaths by incompetent and indifferent leaders (donkeys).[1] The phrase was the source of the title of one of the most scathing examinations of British First World War generals, The Donkeys - a study Western Front offensives - by politician and writer of military histories Alan Clark.[2] The book was representative of much First World War history produced in the 1960s and was not outside the mainstream—Basil Liddell Hart vetted Clark's drafts[3]—and helped to form a popular view of the First World War (in the English-speaking world) in the decades that followed. However, the work's viewpoint of incompetent military leaders was never accepted by mainstream historians, and both the book and its viewpoint have been subject to attempts at revisionism.[4] A good example of this would be general Haig, who led most of the troops from the battle of the Somme to their deaths. " If populist views are based on what people garner from the media, it is no wonder that the Revisionist school is having to fight such a hard rear-guard action. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 A wee quick edit there from moral to morale Well ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Well ... That the new Oh...? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Both these commanders exposed their soldiers to extreme levels of combat intensity and bloodshed, and both were beloved. Indeed ... and especially so by those who survived or were lucky enough to miss a particularly costly action ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 I seem to recall John Terraine having a dig at Bony - criticising the fact that he often fought with one eye on the horizon hoping that the rest of his army would arrive in time to save the day? Didn't happen at Waterloo. Bernard That is exactly what happened at Waterloo, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 But the Prussians arrived first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Buonaparte quite enjoyed a form of barrack room badinage with his troops : to a degree, he courted familiarity. Not so Lee, who displayed earnest gentility to all soldiers - a trait much appreciated by the enlisted men - but who retained dignity and would have been mortified by inappropriate informality. Haig was said to be very remote ; but he was, perhaps, constrained by inarticulacy rather than by innate stuffiness. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 We have had this debate several times, as have historians. The "casual" attitude to life that I saw some pages back has been well and truly exploded by academic historians as well as in the GWF on several occasions. Britain started the war with an army designed to manage an empire, and while other powers had troops elsewhere, I suppose especially the French in North Africa, their perspective, planning and training was surely always intended for a European war. Hankey among others shows how much British commanders worked to the requirements of government, and to separate or blame any British commander for the policies of government is surely ridiculous. Earl Haig rose to a challenge that French could not handle, he had to operate the largest task faced by any British commander in history, without as was pointed out any having previous experience of the new scale of industrialised warfare. We can count casualties, and respect every one of them, but there has been no serious suggestion that any other commander, working to a government in London, and committed to work with allies would have achieved more, and many would probably have achieved much less. A commander accepts responsibility. Haig did. We can argue about the detail or policy, much of which was dictated by political requirements, logistics, and the quality and development of supporting staff. The two latter clearly contributed to ultimate victory as the administration of civilian and military life in the UK slowly rose to the challenge. It is clear that Haig encouraged, supported and used developing technologies as they became available while shouldering the immense responsibility that he was charged with. Undoubtedly he was not perfect, who ever has been, but he accepted responsibility, and with the support and sometimes handicap of governments at home commanded our forces to victory. Disregarding the cynical rubbish published by Lloyd George, his main critics seem to have come from the poets of the late twenties, and the wave of sixties historians. The former had experience at a sharp end, but never at a strategic level and the latter did not have access to the documentation at all levels that is now available and that has largely demolished their views. I don't have the time or the will to devote to the statistics, although they are clearly interesting, not least when we count the human cost of war, but, and in no sense casually, I can't see that the "butcher" argument retains a shred of credibility. It seems to be supported these days primarily on an emotional level. Emotion is fine so far as it goes, and my family were fortunate to escape with no fatalities, but two men wounded, one of whom was afflicted by the effects of the war until his death in the 1960's, but the discussion, without ever becoming "casual" is about a war launched by government, and in which service personnel at all levels had to deliver the result required and pay the cost. Haig has been demonstrated to be a general who accepted the greatest burden, and saw it to a successful conclusion. The respect shown him by the men who served him is surely as important as the revulsion of the poets generation. Whether he was the greatest general, the best or whatever is surely immaterial. He was the general who rose to the task, and professionally delivered what was required of him in a struggle of a unique sort. Keith I have been off-piste for a few days, and return here to find as good a summary of my exact position with regard to the Donkeys as I will ever see. Well done Keith, a concise and most valuable contribution that deserves to be framed. [it will, of course, do precisely nothing to change attitudes, but I hope it may give pause for thought] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Did Charteris leave anything worth reading. He would seem to be an important person who had a ringside seat. Also I would be really interested in exploring any literature/publications from anyone who had served with Haig and defended him specifically with regards to Lloyd George's allegations. I assume Haig's supporters didn't stand by idly watching their idol being torn to shreds by Lloyd George. I imagine the Times letters page was a rather crowded space. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 "Haig" by Charteris might be a primer? http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=14979115158&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26tn%3Dhaig%26sortby%3D17%26an%3Dcharteris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Haig Defended-Baronet's Reference At Legion Meeting. Lord Haig was defended by Major Sir Francis Burdett who spoke last night at the annual dinner of the Ramsbury (Wilts) branch of the British Legion. Sir Francis asked why they should take so much notice of what Mr Lloyd George has said about Lord Haig. " We all know what politicians think of soldiers " he said " and we also know what soldiers think about politicians. Therefore that comes about level. I do not think it is playing the game for a man like Mr Lloyd George to start abusing not only Lord Haig, but practically the whole of the British Army, and to say there was not a soldier fit to command in the whole of the British Legion. It is a pity Mr Lloyd George did not join up at the beginning of the War and then perhaps the words he has used would never have been written. Not only are his words untrue, but on the other hand that is a low trick to abuse a man when he is dead. " Sir Francis said that Mr Lloyd George had been out of the limelight and wanted to get back. " He does not like being ignored and he seems to think the best way to get back to the limelight is to set up personal abuse. " Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Tuesday 04 December 1934 (British Newspaper Archives)Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 I was thinking of Grouchy, Grumpy. No pun intended. Didn't he rigidly follow his orders rather than march to the sound of the guns? Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Did Charteris leave anything worth reading. He would seem to be an important person who had a ringside seat. Also I would be really interested in exploring any literature/publications from anyone who had served with Haig and defended him specifically with regards to Lloyd George's allegations. I assume Haig's supporters didn't stand by idly watching their idol being torn to shreds by Lloyd George. I imagine the Times letters page was a rather crowded space. MG Douglas Haig as I Knew Him is an interesting take; by GS Duncan, who became his 'unofficial' chaplain. A very intelligent man, later Moderator of the Church of Scotland - published this slim book in, IIRC, 1961. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 I was thinking of Grouchy, Grumpy. No pun intended. Didn't he rigidly follow his orders rather than march to the sound of the guns? Bernard Yes, I was also thinking of Grouchy, but you said it didin't happen at Waterloo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clk Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 Thinking about "rewards"/recognition in broad terms and the issue of social "popularity", are there many examples of contemporary statues, dedications, commemorations, etc of his service? In my home town we have a Douglas Haig Road (early post war municipal housing). Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 30 May , 2016 Share Posted 30 May , 2016 http://www.haighousing.org.uk/node/2 S ome recognition here. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 31 May , 2016 Share Posted 31 May , 2016 There was a Haig Road in Cambridge, which ran down to the river on the Chesterton side, but it was demolished to make way for the Elizabeth Way bridge in the 60's. (Or possibly 70's. I forget). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ridgus Posted 31 May , 2016 Share Posted 31 May , 2016 Southport's football stadium, Ash Lane, was renamed Haig Avenue in 1921 in Earl Haig's honour David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 31 May , 2016 Share Posted 31 May , 2016 Sir John "Tavish" Davidson's "Haig: master of the field" falls into the category of defence of the man by one who served with him. See http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/book-reviews/103-schools/key-stage5/1593-haig-master-of-the-field.html#sthash.WAKLxQV4.dpbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 31 May , 2016 Share Posted 31 May , 2016 "Haig" by Charteris might be a primer? http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=14979115158&searchurl=sts%3Dt%26tn%3Dhaig%26sortby%3D17%26an%3Dcharteris Thanks Grumpy I had looked at this but it was a 1929 copy; published before Lloyd George's criticism. After a trawl of AbeBooks.com I see there is a 1933 edition which I assume was produced as a counter. I have ordered a 1933 copy, so thanks for the pointer. MG Sir John "Tavish" Davidson's "Haig: master of the field" falls into the category of defence of the man by one who served with him. See http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/book-reviews/103-schools/key-stage5/1593-haig-master-of-the-field.html#sthash.WAKLxQV4.dpbs Thank you for the pointer. Much appreciated. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 31 May , 2016 Share Posted 31 May , 2016 in General Sir Charles Harrington's biog of Plumer published 1935 he says which is a pity. Did he comment subsequently ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now