Haig's Post War 'Rewards' ?

[phil andrade]

They could have been Pershing's words. When he and his Doughboys arrived, they finished the job and Haig should have been pensioned off as they hit these shores.

And what level of pension would you have deemed appropriate, Geraint ?

There you are.....back on topic !

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

geraint, you surely can't be serious.

My point in (the unanswered) post 393.

[gordon92]

Mike

Thanks very much. I believe Patton's tenure as an aide to Pershing was very brief before moving on to the Tank Corps.

[PhilB]

Haig - more of a charger than the fire eater Patton? Not an accusation I`ve heard laid against him before?

[geraint]

Seriousness?

Yes and no.

Haig took over from John French, had two years to do something, and would have given way to the next credible force. Which came in the form, initially, of an American expeditionary force which could have developed into a full scale decisive invasive force. If the 1918 German offensive had succeeded, or Haig's offensive had failed, do you think he Haig would have remained in post? He'd have been sacked! And not before time neither. He was lucky to remain in post for so long.

Phil - he'd have been cashiered - no pension.

[Steven Broomfield]

Trouble is, Geraint, that the German offensive failed and Haig's offensive (interesting you're happy to refer to it as that, given its complete success) succeeded, so your question is, really, irrelevant.

[paulgranger]

Haig took over from John French, had two years to do something, which came in the form of a British Army that had developed into a full scale invasive force that beat the German Army back to a point where surrender was the only option. Pershing mounted successful attacks as part of the general action, his first being in September 1918, by which time the British and the French had been hammering the Germans back for a month or more. Haig cashiered? What piffle.

[phil andrade]

Geraint,

A very good friend of mine - a Welshman - had a grandfather who enjoyed enormous rewards after the Great War.

Sad to say, my pal died a couple of years ago, as a result of sepsis that coursed into his heart after root canal dental surgery.

Cause of death very similar - perhaps identical - to that which killed Haig himself.

I think my friend, at sixty one, was even younger than Haig was when he died.

The grandfather had been a medical officer serving with the Indian army ; during the Great War, he was attached to the Grenadier Guards and made a very good account of himself in the September 1914 fighting on the Aisne.

To my delight, he was actually mentioned in Max Hastings's book CATASTROPHE , and the nickname " Tubby Howell" was used in the text, as Hastings cited how wounded had been treated in the very severe battle that developed in the middle of that month.

Tom, my pal, was an avid Swansea supporter, born and raised in the Gower, not far from Mumbles.

His grandfather's career had been one of meteoric advance, ending up with the rank of General.

After the war, he was granted land around Builth Wells, containing a quarry, a stretch of river with fishing rights and a significant estate with tenant farmers.

So Tom's privileged status owed much to the services of his grandfather in the Great War.

If a medical officer was granted such, then I wonder how far this was on the recommendation of Haig himself, who would have been Corps commander at the time of Tubby Howell's most conspicuous service.

I wanted to mention this story because of the Welsh connection, and the very emphatic stress on the class barriers of that era that still cause resentment, especially in Glamorgan.

I am sure that Tom's grandfather deserved some reward ; I wonder how far my old pal would have acknowledged - and, perhaps, agreed with - your sense of outrage.

If this was how a regimental medical officer was rewarded, then the fare for the man in charge of the biggest ever army in British history, who fought and won its biggest victory, was bound to be something pretty substantial.

Phil (PJA)

[Chris_Baker]

Haig took over from John French, had two years to do something, which came in the form of a British Army that had developed into a full scale invasive force that beat the German Army back to a point where surrender was the only option. Pershing mounted successful attacks as part of the general action, his first being in September 1918, by which time the British and the French had been hammering the Germans back for a month or more. Haig cashiered? What piffle.

Well said, Paul.

Western Times, 6 November 1918, but representative of many such headlines since 8 August 1918. The notion that Haig might have been fired in the second half of 1918 is not terribly credible.

[phil andrade]

Did ( does?) the anti Haig school resonate loudest in areas that suffered the most acute economic decline after the Great War ?

Heavy industry in South Wales was notorious in this regard : something's got to be bloody well done ! commented the man who gave up his throne for the woman he loved....perhaps other areas in the North East, too....could we conflate this industrial decline with a sense of betrayal that found ( finds?) an outlet in Haig bashing ?

This becomes " a class thing".

Some areas of Britain flourished in the twenties and thirties : huge building programmes of pebble dashed semis with much higher living standards for many millions throughout the South and the Midlands ; was there a diminished susceptibility to Haig hatred in those places ?

What say you, Geraint ?

Phil (PJA)

[Medaler]

Might I ask a question? No motivation other than that I don't know the answer.

Is there a perception that the average ex serviceman in France or Belgium did better that the average Brit? If we think we were "hard done to", who are we comparing ourselves with? I am pretty sure we came off better than most Russians, but we can usually rely on that being the case.

Mike

[towisuk]

Just to go back to post #1, we've covered a lot of topics in this discussion, Haigs competency, tactics, command structure, etc, etc, etc. Some really interesting replies that tried to exist within the topic's original title, others that veered off on a tangent and some (a few) that were impolite to other forum members replies.

I think that any topic that has Haig as a discussion point raises an awful lot of opinions, and we seemed to have covered a great deal of them in this topic.

Many thanks for everyone's input, I get the feeling that no matter what points are put forward it is very difficult to move others from their original opinion of Haig.

In a way the establishment were just as guilty of drawing a line between the troops in the field and the commander, by offering the rewards for doing what was essentially "his job", be it efficiently or otherwise.

I guess we could equate it with today's bankers...big rewards for failures in a lot of cases.... or.... looking after "one of the boys".....

many thanks fro everyone's input again

regards

Tom

[Guest]

In a way the establishment were just as guilty of drawing a line between the troops in the field and the commander, by offering the rewards for doing what was essentially "his job", be it efficiently or otherwise.

I guess we could equate it with today's bankers...big rewards for failures in a lot of cases.... or.... looking after "one of the boys".....

You are ill-informed. Very. Whoever is providing you information on how bankers are paid has no idea what they are talking about. "Bankers" bonuses (= rewards) are taxed heavily, paid in drips over a number of years and have claw-backs in the case of subsequent failures. A significant part of what they were and are paid is in shares in the Banks - normally way in excess of 50% and the higher one is in an organisation the greater this proportion becomes.. This 'reward' is locked up and does not 'vest' typically for 3 years or longer. When banks fail their share prices collapse so this part of the reward typically turns to zero. In gross failure, fines and jail sentences have been handed out and the banks themselves have been fined billions of pounds on multiple occasions...which severely depletes the pool left to pay them. Tens of thousands lost their jobs and thousands have been banned for life from working in banking for their failures. As they should.

To equate Haig's rewards to how bankers are paid is nonsense on a number of levels. MG

[phil andrade]

Might it be fair to say that there are some parts of Britain that labour under a general sense of " grievance" - I have seen this word used to depict the political attitudes of people in South Wales - and that, wherever this prevails, anti Haig sentiment is more apparent ?

I wonder if we could investigate how far these syndromes might be conflated.

Phil (PJA)

[PhilB]

Phil, where do you expect to find a map showing degrees of anti-Haig sentiment around the country?

[michaeldr]

In a way the establishment were just as guilty of drawing a line between the troops in the field and the commander, by offering the rewards for doing what was essentially "his job", be it efficiently or otherwise.

I guess we could equate it with today's bankers...big rewards for failures in a lot of cases.... or.... looking after "one of the boys".....

I suppose Tom, that you were thinking of cases such as "RBS paid out £421m in bonuses in 2014 despite £3.5bn loss" see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/26/rbs-paid-out-421m-in-bonuses-in-2014-royal-bank-scotland

In his book 'Hell's Foundations' Geoffrey Moorhouse mentions that KGV refused to countenance a campaign medal for Gallipoli on the grounds that

“We do not issue medals for retreats” (see p.140)

Nevertheless the honours handed out following the campaign did indeed give every appearance of rewarding a retreat.

eg: the GSO 1 of the RND got the CMG, while being referred to in his General's private correspondence as “useless”

regards

Michael

[phil andrade]

Phil, where do you expect to find a map showing degrees of anti-Haig sentiment around the country?

There isn't one.

But there could be, given enough anoraks willing and able to conduct the research.

The stories Geraint relates tend to bear out my suggestion.

I suppose the upshot is that perceptions of Haig have been determined largely by social, economic and cultural criteria, rather than by the criterion of his actual military leadership.

Phil (PJA)

[tumbi1]

My perceptions of Haig are purely from the results of his battles. No great, or even competent, general could have led their soldiers into battles like the Somme and Passchendaele. The results speak for themselves. I hear people say it was inevitable in war on an industrial scale that you would have the casualties they did, but ordering your soldiers to walk across no mans land in mass formations carrying so much equipment they couldn't run, despite warnings the enemy machines guns hadn't been silenced is not inevitable. It's incompetence. Losing 60,000 men on the first day of the Somme was not inevitable.

Apparently anyone not agreeing with the new wave of revisionist thought on Haig is not informed. I have read what is now being said about Haig, I have read his dispatches etc, and I am very far from convinced. I really don't understand this new line of thinking. Yes, Haig wasn't all bad, I'm glad he introduced things like a Dental Corps, but he wasn't a good general in my opinion. I am only 'picking' on Haig as he is now somehow considered one of the great captains of history. To label ANY of the leaders on both sides of the lines 'great' is an insult to the generation of dead and destroyed men of the Great War. It is said Falkenhayn had trouble sleeping after the war - I think that is appropriate, and at least he had enough imagination to comprehend what had occurred.

I think the fact the British Army never mutinied en-mass like the French army is a testament to the endurance of the British Tommy. The conditions the soldiers endured is hard to comprehend, and they stuck at it despite being ordered to attack repeatedly in those impossible conditions by a leadership which was obviously out of touch. It wasn't all Haig's fault, as there was a whole staff running things, but he was their leader. I am in awe of the average British solder.

Yes Haig 'won' in the end, but the Germans had always been significantly outnumbered and outgunned. By August 1918 the Germans were exhausted, and that was the primary reason for their collapse. The new tactics were a lot better than what was used 4 years earlier, but my goodness they took a long time to learn! Visionaries like Fuller and others, even before the war, had pointed to the way things should go, but they weren't listened to. As I have said, the leadership of both sides were at fault, and Haig was just one of them. Yes he used these new arms, but after so many failures he had to, and the fact he was still talking up the cavalry years after the war ended confirms for me that he just didn't 'get it'. I have read what Kenyon has said about cavalry on the western front, and I agree that just as Haig wasn't all bad, cavalry wasn't completely useless, but the writing was on the wall very early in the piece that cavalry had little future in modern war. The German invasion of Poland in World War 2 just 21 years later demonstrated that fact. Again the Polish cavalry weren't completely useless, but they were completely outmatched.

I would have loved to have have seen the result of an initial mass attack of thousands of tanks, like the tank men advocated. The first tanks had a lot of shortcomings, but even the relatively small numbers used initially pointed to what could have been. I think if the tank had enough support behind it to begin with, and if the first attack was followed up with replacements on a sufficient scale I think the outcome of the war would have been very different. The tank could have been a war winning weapon.

Maybe the old way of looking at Haig was too extreme, but things have gone way too far the other way in my opinion. The only generals from the Great War who I think had some credibility were people like Currie and Monash, but they never got their chance at higher command. It would have been interesting to see what they could have done. I think using the terms 'donkey' or 'butcher' is a natural emotional reaction to the enormity of the human tragedy of the Great War, and unfortunately those terms make Haig sound all bad. He wasn't, but he was one of a generation of poor generals that led their giant armies into disaster.

Setting aside the military leadership, people have tried to deflect blame from Haig onto the politicians. I agree, the political leaders of all the countries involved are more culpable than the generals. They led their counties into war for vain and selfish reasons, and for that they stand condemned.

[phil andrade]

Today there's a lecture at RUSI in Whitehall. I am looking forward to attending.

The theme is the generalship of R.E.Lee in the American Civil War.

The special skills of his leadership are to be analysed and discussed.

The soldiers who fought for Lee were engaged in fighting of great intensity and suffered casualty rates that were remarkably high.

By and large, these men were pretty poor, and their lives after the conflict were steeped in hardship and humiliation.

My point : these men adored Lee, and his post war reputation remained not only intact, but was enhanced.

The contrast with Haig is striking.

I might actually allude to this in the question time after the speaker ( Professor Brian Holden-Reid) has delivered his talk.

There has been some revisionism in regard to Lee, too, especially in more modern historiography ....but, all in all, he is still very highly rated.

Perhaps the phenomenon of " The Lost Cause" helped to embellish Lee's reputation.

This country was denied a Lost Cause syndrome because Haig & Co won.

Their German counterparts, losers, were indulged in a Lost Cause syndrome, which became famous as " The Stab in the Back".

Phil (PJA)

[Chris_Baker]

I would have loved to have have seen the result of an initial mass attack of thousands of tanks, like the tank men advocated. The first tanks had a lot of shortcomings, but even the relatively small numbers used initially pointed to what could have been. I think if the tank had enough support behind it to begin with, and if the first attack was followed up with replacements on a sufficient scale I think the outcome of the war would have been very different. The tank could have been a war winning weapon.

Very good point. They might have been available as early as 1919.

[tumbi1]

Today there's a lecture at RUSI in Whitehall. I am looking forward to attending.

The theme is the generalship of R.E.Lee in the American Civil War.

The special skills of his leadership are to be analysed and discussed.

The soldiers who fought for Lee were engaged in fighting of great intensity and suffered casualty rates that were remarkably high.

By and large, these men were pretty poor, and their lives after the conflict were steeped in hardship and humiliation.

My point : these men adored Lee, and his post war reputation remained not only intact, but was enhanced.

The contrast with Haig is striking.

I might actually allude to this in the question time after the speaker ( Professor Brian Holden-Reid) has delivered his talk.

There has been some revisionism in regard to Lee, too, especially in more modern historiography ....but, all in all, he is still very highly rated.

Perhaps the phenomenon of " The Lost Cause" helped to embellish Lee's reputation.

This country was denied a Lost Cause syndrome because Haig & Co won.

Their German counterparts, losers, were indulged in a Lost Cause syndrome, which became famous as " The Stab in the Back".

Phil (PJA)

One big difference between the allied leaders and General Lee - Lee was always out-numbered and out-gunned. In World War One the Germans were the ones out-numbered and out-gunned.

Very good point. They might have been available as early as 1919.

If there had been enough support for them they most certainly could have had the numbers required much earlier than that.

[Chris_Baker]

If there had been enough support for them they most certainly could have had the numbers required much earlier than that.

Anything is possible, but it is fantasy. It would mean the commitment of manufacturing manpower (diverting away from what? shells? ships? aircraft?) to a mass production of tanks. Build say five new tank factories and five new engine factories to cope with the requirement. Somehow keep the stockpiling of hundreds of tanks a secret. And then deploy an unproven wonder weapon, three quarters of which break down before they reach the enemy front line.

[Gareth Davies]

My perceptions of Haig are purely from the results of his battles. No great, or even competent, general could have led their soldiers into battles like the Somme and Passchendaele. The results speak for themselves. I hear people say it was inevitable in war on an industrial scale that you would have the casualties they did, but ordering your soldiers to walk across no mans land in mass formations carrying so much equipment they couldn't run, despite warnings the enemy machines guns hadn't been silenced is not inevitable. It's incompetence. Losing 60,000 men on the first day of the Somme was not inevitable.

I have 2 difficulties with this. Haig didn't order anyone to 'walk across no mans land in mass formation". And second, I am not convinced by the 'so much kit they couldn't run' argument.

[squirrel]

The tactics used in assaults were generally decided upon at Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, Battalion and even at Company and Platoon level.

Rawlinson had a great deal of input as to how the attacks would be carried out at a tactical level.

As regards them men being so encumbered that they could not run, the state of no-man's land after the bombardments and counter bombardments and some of the slopes involved, as well as the grass and vegetation in some other places, would make running impractical in a large number of instances.

[Muerrisch]

QUOTE:

In World War One the Germans were the ones out-numbered and out-gunned.

Try reading any account of First Ypres and then come back to me on this one please.