Haig's Post War 'Rewards' ?

[Steven Broomfield]

Also welcome from me, Ascent. I think your post points out something not mentioned (so far as I am aware) in this thread; namely that death was far more a part of life (no joke intended) than it is today. Deaths at work, whether down the mine or working the land, were far more common. Very few people, I suspect, would not have seen a dead body - for that generation, as for those preceding - death was part of life.

At the same time a spirit of deference, probably/possibly killed by the war, held sway. I doubt many of the men who served under Haig saw a problem with him being rewarded.

[kenneth505]

Welcome Ascent, your point is well taken, thanks. I suppose your point about the lack of compensation for working men is another turning point on the path to the current version of the extant welfare state, for better or worse.

[Khaki]

I think Haig leading the winning team was probably worth more than what he got, I find it hard to understand why anyone has a problem with his compensation package, what the man in the street or veteran got was a result of political decisions not military ones, Haig post war, made every effort to 'ease the burden of his former soldiers' and it was not unappreciated by the veterans. Sadly Haig did not live a long time to enjoy his retirement.

khaki

[hazelclark]

Sadly Haig did not live a long time to enjoy his retirement.

khaki

Early death brought on possibly by the stress of it all. Imagine the responsibility of his war time command. Whether one considers him to be good bad or indifferent, the stress would be horrendous. Since he had to live at such a mental pitch the end of the war was probably something of an anti climax, which can cause more severe problems than the actual period of stress itself.

Hazel

[geraint]

hazel clark, on 28 May 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:hazel clark, on 28 May 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:hazel clark, on 28 May 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

Those of my mother's generation with whom i spoke were quite outspoken in the condemnation of Haig and that sentiment was passed on to their children.

Hazel - This is my experience as well - from both my father's line in north Wales and of my mother's line in south Wales. They both represented families serving in the RWF and SWBs and their criticism of Haig was passed down to me. Though many were devout British Legion members - they were certainly not uncritical of the war's leadership. Again, I find this same concept of criticism in my home town of Ruthin in north east Wales - a third Welsh geographical region, where, during interviews, veteran family members have declaimed Haig as being personally responsible through his mismanagement for the death of their family members. Regarding the comment on the turn-out at Haig's funeral - people turned out because it was expected of them - and they went there with their own personal agendas. At Lloyd George's funeral in 1945 my father went there with his teenage mates to "make sure that he'd never rise from death to life (like Jesus), by witnessing that massive boulder being placed on his grave".

[Khaki]

Even today, we have to now reexamine the long held prejudices against Richard III, if we can manage that in a dispassionate way, why not FM Haig ?

khaki

[hazelclark]

Even today, we have to now reexamine the long held prejudices against Richard III, if we can manage that in a dispassionate way, why not FM Haig ?

khaki

I think that the coverage over the next few years will help. However, we can't rewrite history. Although, thinking about some of the "official" histories, maybe we can.

Hazel

[hazelclark]

Hazel - This is my experience as well - from both my father's line in north Wales and of my mother's line in south Wales. They both represented families serving in the RWF and SWBs and their criticism of Haig was passed down to me. Though many were devout British Legion members - they were certainly not uncritical of the war's leadership. Again, I find this same concept of criticism in my home town of Ruthin in north east Wales - a third Welsh geographical region, where, during interviews, veteran family members have declaimed Haig as being personally responsible through his mismanagement for the death of their family members. Regarding the comment on the turn-out at Haig's funeral - people turned out because it was expected of them - and they went there with their own personal agendas. At Lloyd George's funeral in 1945 my father went there with his teenage mates to "make sure that he'd never rise from death to life (like Jesus), by witnessing that massive boulder being placed on his grave".

Glad it isn't just me!

H.

[geraint]

khaki, on 29 May 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:khaki, on 29 May 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:

I am sorry, but I have to ask, where did that analysis come from? considering the turn out of thousands, whose to say that the vast proportion or any proportion didn't just have a great respect for Haig as a soldier. Is there some survey that I am unaware of ?

khaki

Why do you turn out on Armistice Sunday? To pay your respects to Haig? To pay your respects to ALL who died? To pay your respects to your immediate family? To pay your respects to the 'enemy'? To honour the King/Queen/Local Landowner and the columns of your society? To voice your conscientious rejection to war? To placate your Local Council? Because you are the Town Mayor/MP/Lord Lieutenant/Chief Inspector of police etc etc., because by being there a benevolence or a benefit will be paid to you? Because society will not question why you weren't there? Because it's the in thing to do on that particular day? Because all the local newspapers are saying that you must be there? Oh yes and maybe, maybe; because you actually had a bit of respect for them.

[geraint]

OOH? Has a post gone missing - the one I responded to above?

[Khaki]

Yes, I had already deleted the post as having read it I realized that I had posed a question to which there could be no reasonable answer and I did not wish it to be considered as provocative and providing an excuse for two camps to be at odds over something that is no longer that compelling.

khaki

[squirrel]

Ascent has made a very valid point - the standards and expectations of the early part of the 20th century were different. Death in industry and agriculture was an accepted fact of lfe as was disablement.

Infant mortality rates were high and for many diseases there was little effective treatment with death the only eventual outcome. History is a different place, as has been said many times.

If relatives had to "blame" someone for a war death in the family, then not unnaturally, they would blame whoever they considered to be "in charge" and this usuallly meant blaming the Commander although, as has been pointed out in this thread, the Politicians were responsible for declaring war on Germany.

[PhilB]

Are you suggesting, Squirrel, that because "Death in industry and agriculture was an accepted fact of lfe as was disablement", then the projected loss of 10% of the nation`s manhood (Post #80) could be accepted with equanimity?

[MartH]

John Terraine used to kick of some his lectures or talks with a letter or essay that he received researching the series the Great War. It talked about regular death and maiming to men, lack of food, etc, you thought it was just behind front line. It was not, it was an industrial region in the north, and the person who sent it to him did it to show how hard life was for many people before the war. Very sobering.

[Jack Sheldon]

Both Phils A & B

You need to be careful about using expressions like, '10% of the nation's manhood'. That is what journalists tend to do under headlines like, 'Haig killed a million men on the Somme'. The real figure is bad enough. If you take the entire British Empire, almost 9 million men were called up in some capacity or other. Of those about 950,000 were killed, so it is true that 1.5 - 2 men out of every twenty who served under the Union Jack died. This means in turn: that more than eighteen out of every twenty who served survived, that this was, nevertheless, a considerable blood letting, way in excess of normal peacetime death rates, but it did not represent '10% of the nation's manhood', the 'death of a generation' or anything like it.

Jack

[Muerrisch]

Are you suggesting, Squirrel, that because "Death in industry and agriculture was an accepted fact of lfe as was disablement", then the projected loss of 10% of the nation`s manhood (Post #80) could be accepted with equanimity?

Of course he was not, and well you know it.

You need look no further than the list of those commemorated by Squirrel to be assured of that.

Nobody but nobody on this thread "accepts with equanimity", but a substantial number of contributors have been trying to give a glimpse of how matters were seen in the war and the immediate aftermath ...... HISTORY in a word.

[PhilB]

Of course, it was not Squirrel`s acceptance that was in question! The politicians of the time, having been made aware of the probable scale of losses, were prepared to accept them as reasonable in the circumstances. The daily deaths in industry, agriculture and general life may well have influenced them.

[keithfazzani]

For industrial living conditions at the time one can do far worse than read Emile Zola's Germinal. Published in 1885 it gives a vivid account of life in the coal mining areas of France some thirty years before the war, and I doubt conditions had changed greatly during those three decades. Again it is set in France but would I feel sure reflect conditions in Great Britain and the other countries involved in the Great War. In that account of life workers were, if you choose to use the phrase, cannon fodder, long before the outbreak of war.

[phil andrade]

Both Phils A & B

You need to be careful about using expressions like, '10% of the nation's manhood'. That is what journalists tend to do under headlines like, 'Haig killed a million men on the Somme'. The real figure is bad enough. If you take the entire British Empire, almost 9 million men were called up in some capacity or other. Of those about 950,000 were killed, so it is true that 1.5 - 2 men out of every twenty who served under the Union Jack died. This means in turn: that more than eighteen out of every twenty who served survived, that this was, nevertheless, a considerable blood letting, way in excess of normal peacetime death rates, but it did not represent '10% of the nation's manhood', the 'death of a generation' or anything like it.

Jack

Forgive me, Jack, but I must challenge you here.

The phrase was used by Haig himself.

In arithmetical terms, this was valid and not hyperbole.

The military manhood of the UK - men of military age - was approximately one fifth of the total population.

Of that number - eight million or so - one in ten, more or less, did indeed perish in the war.

Do you imagine that I espouse the journalistic views you allude to ?

I hope to God that you don't !

Edit, Haig's words :

The aim for which the war is being waged is the destruction of German militarism. Three years of war and the loss of one-tenth of the manhood of the nation is not too great a price to pay in so great a cause.

Phil (PJA)

[PhilB]

Probably there`s much truth in the phrase "In that account of life workers were, if you choose to use the phrase, cannon fodder, long before the outbreak of war." However, in 1914, it was known that the middle and upper classes would also go through the grinder.

We should remember that the politicians made a similar decision in 1939 (now deemed right and proper) when it was even more apparent (after the experience of WW1) that huge losses would be incurred.

[squirrel]

Are you suggesting, Squirrel, that because "Death in industry and agriculture was an accepted fact of lfe as was disablement", then the projected loss of 10% of the nation`s manhood (Post #80) could be accepted with equanimity?

No, just attempting to reinforce the fact, already put in to the discussion, that death and disability from a great variety of causes was commonplace before the War. The average life expectancy of adults was also much shorter than today. Dealing with death was a far more common occourence for families then than it is today.

Remember that professional soldiers have to take many factors in to account when planning for war, either in peacetime or in war, and one of those factors is probable casualties, both their own and the enemy's, as a result of their plans. No one can fight a war without incurring casualties and no Commander sets out to lose men without serious consideration.

In dealing with a war of such magnitude, which none of the Commanders had had previous experience of, then I do not question that the number of casualties was appalling and that some of those families, but not all who lost loved ones, found it hard to accept what had happened and also why. Some wanted someone to blame and Haig and his Generals were an obvious target.

However, mistakes and misjudgements were made at all levels - anyone from a from the most junior NCO rank or equivalent in the Navy, Army or RFC/RAF upwards could have been responsible for an individual's death if they got things wrong at the tactical level, let alone the Commanders with the strategy.

[Jack Sheldon]

Sorry Phil, I have been out - hence the delay. I am not at all accusing you of journalistic tendencies. I am well aware of the care with which you work. My objection is to the use of loose language which can be seized on by those with an axe to grind, in connection with a highly emotive subject. As always, discussion of casualties generates more heat than light. To me the term the 'nation's manhood' refers to the adult male population which is larger by a factor of around 4 than the number of those in aggregate who served at any point during the war. Even if we talk only in terms of those of military age, the statement still cannot be right, because there was a staggering number of exemptions - over 2 million IIRC. In addition, when conscription was introduced, a very large percentage of those eligible by age did not meet the medical criteria and were not inducted. It seems to me that the only reasonably acceptable and defendable statement (and of course these things are generalisations and open to objection on points of detail) is that of those men of military age who served, somewhere close to 10 % were killed and slightly over 90% were not.

Jack

[phil andrade]

Hello Jack,

There is a rule of thumb which gives a rough and ready reckoning that about one in five of the population will be a male between 15 and 40 years of age. I cannot vouch for accuracy, but I feel we can repose a degree of confidence in it.

This has been demonstrated in regard to America 1861-65 , and I believe it holds true for Great Britain in 1914, too.

It wouldn't apply to the demographics of Egypt today, or to China.

I think you will find that about one in eight of the men who served in the UK armed forces died 1914-18.

Forgive me if I protested too much....some of the threads are becoming very touchy in tone, and I'm wondering if it's because of me in some instances !

The crucial thing is, whatever the actual figure, Haig countenanced decimation , and events were to prove that this was not an extravagant piece of rhetoric.

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

The GOVERNMENT sanctioned decimation.

[phil andrade]

Yes, Haig ventured a prediction, and the Government sanctioned it.

And then Lloyd George produced vituperative writings in an endeavour to load the blame on to Haig.

Not nice.

Phil (PJA)