Haig's Post War 'Rewards' ?

[hazelclark]

That stunned them into silence .......

Well yes! It is quite perfect.

H

[towisuk]

I sometimes despair at the apologists for actions taken by the High command in the Great War, I've read numerous books on the experiences of the men in the trenches, and there are no words to describe the suffering that the soldiers and young officers at the front went through. Yet question Haigs right to receive rewards way out of reach of the men that suffered, were mauled physically and mentally and we run to seven pages on the forum in a few days....mostly appearing to say...."nothing wrong with Haigs Rewards"

We are lucky to live in an age, where through modern communication we have the ability to know facts that others never knew, yet it seems the line of subservience to a higher authority continues to rule....

regards

Tom

[phil andrade]

But what do you expect from the likes of us, Tom ?

We're easily duped pro- establishment stooges !

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

Yes, I must be too.

[David Filsell]

Get over it. It's history. The pro Haigists have their views towisuk. You have yours. Me? I have given up trying to persuade those in the anti camp. It's an argument not worth fighting.

[hazelclark]

Yes it was awful. But to attempt to bring it to the context of the year 2014 is doing a disservice to those who fought, and I actually KNEW several who fought.

Hazel

[phil andrade]

By today's lights, some of the societal norms of a century ago are hard to stomach.

Is this discussion about Haig's reward a judgement on the character of the man, or the social mores of the day ? How far is the one the product of the other ?

A hundred years hence, our descendants will probably revile us for one reason or another.

Phil (PJA)

[geraint]

I disagree Phil. Humanity hasn't changed. People are vicious and horrible towards one another today; as they were a hundred years ago. Just glance at today's headlines - stoning of young girls, killing of children and adults; kidnapping and murdering of those Nigerian schoolgirls etc. As Hazel says - I also knew those people, they were my near kin, and neighbours.

Approximate figures follow. Of 7.5 million men who had served by 1919 (7.5 million!) 750,000 were killed and another 3,000, 000 suffered physical injuries, and the rest carried the scars of war for the rest of their lives. Ditto diverse figures for Russia, France, Germany etc etc. Now Haig may well have been the best possible choice at the time. He may well have been an orgasmically cool superhero CiC by 1918 beating every other contender for the title since Tiberius. But he still supervised the deaths of my immediate family members and ensured that other family members had recurrent horrors of the Somme for the rest of their lives. He was neither lion nor donkey but he is responsible for wasting those lives on a massive scale. It wouldn't happen today - and it shouldn't have happened in 1914. It's appalling that anyone today can even justify the strategies and tactics of Haig's thinking and approaches to the problem.

Diplomacy. Post 1815 Vienna Congress diplomacy did it for a hundred years. Had they (the various powers wanted it) - diplomacy would have kept the peace again, and the Great War wouldn't have happened.

[David Filsell]

But it did happen Geraint. And the only people who could action it were the army. Then, as now, the politicians had their fingers on the button. The army was their tool.

[phil andrade]

Why is Haig being held to account like this for the catastrophe of 1914-18, Geraint ?

His responsibility implicit in high command is one thing ; culpability another.

Do you really believe that he was directly culpable for the decimation of our grandparents' generation ?

He did the job he was asigned to the best of the lights that led him. As to how bright - or dim - those lights were....well, are we fit to judge ?

Sheffield says it so well :

Haig was a man of his era. He was a Victorian, yet all too often he is judged by the standards of later times. His virtues and values are not held in high regard by modern society, while a reserved, austere personality like Haig's is out of fashion in the confessional celebrity culture of today. His style of leading his army was made obsolete seventy years ago by the " People's Generals" in the Second World War. Above all, Haig's strategy, like those of the other Great War generals of all nationalities, implicitly accepted that there would be very heavy losses among his own troops. To the casualty-intolerant twenty - first century, this is callous disregard for human life. All this points to an obvious conclusion : Douglas Haig was not a modern man, and he should not be judged as if he was. Just like any other historical figure, whether Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII, or the Duke of Wellington, he should be examined in the context of his own times, his own society, his own culture. " The past is a foreign country : they do things differently there " .

How do you rate that assessment, Geraint ?

I find it convincing.

Phil (PJA)

[keithmroberts]

Phil

I agree absolutely, and I don't see where this idea comes from that the military were responsible for starting the war. Governments made treaties, determined policies, and ultimately launched the war. The military did what staffs do, prepare plans. Henry Wilson liaised with French counterparts and British managers to plan the deployment of the BEF, but the deployment was ordered by government as a result of treaties made by governments in response to an armed invasion.. Kitchener told the politicians it would be a long war and need large armies. French and then Haig commanded the British ones. Errors, misjudgements, yes surely, but who would have done better than Haig, charged with leading such enormous forces against what started the war as the most powerful army of the generation.

Haig was a successful commander, and although he didn't provide the pithy quotes, I'm sure from the remainder of his life that he fully empathised with Wellington's comment "Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won".

The cost of the war was horrendous, all the participants suffered enormous casualties. That does not mean that any did so lightly. Possibly the Kaiser and his advisers may have thought that they could win a rapid war in 1914, but once they failed to do so the scale of loss was predetermined. I don't think anyone here will belittle it. Phil said it though - men and in this case I mean the commanders, did what they had to as part of the war. They did what they saw as their duty, as so many of those who served in humbler ranks did. The vitriol poured on the generals in some posts seems utterly pointless and just wrong headed. . "War is the continuation of politics by other means". Just so, and in the developed world of the time, the armies served the governments at the commencement of the war. I accept that it could be argued that in Germany the army pretty much usurped the role of government as the war progressed, but in the other combatants governments willed the war to continue and sought victory.

[Muerrisch]

Humanity has not changed

But

It would not happen today

What!?

[geraint]

PJA, on 01 Jun 2014 - 9:32 PM, said:PJA, on 01 Jun 2014 - 9:32 PM, said:PJA, on 01 Jun 2014 - 9:32 PM, said:PJA, on 01 Jun 2014 - 9:32 PM, said:

Why is Haig being held to account like this for the catastrophe of 1914-18, Geraint ?

Above all, Haig's strategy, like those of the other Great War generals of all nationalities, implicitly accepted that there would be very heavy losses among his own troops. To the casualty-intolerant twenty - first century, this is callous disregard for human life. All this points to an obvious conclusion : Douglas Haig was not a modern man, and he should not be judged as if he was. Just like any other historical figure, whether Julius Caesar, King Henry VIII, or the Duke of Wellington, he should be examined in the context of his own times, his own society, his own culture. " The past is a foreign country : they do things differently there " .

How do you rate that assessment, Geraint ?

I find it convincing.

Phil (PJA)

Lets look at this. What's wrong with being "casualty intolerant"? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me - as it did to medieval leaders fighting greater forces and using strategies relevant to their circumstances. Skirmish, guerrilla ambushes, as the Welsh did to the invading Norman/English for centuries between 1087 -1415. The Welsh never fought a pitch battle against the English due to the disproportionate population size. The war continued for over 250 years. We knew this 800 years ago. Hadn't the military command learnt this lesson of attrition by 1914? What on earth does "Haig implicitly accepted that there would be heavy losses amongst his own troops" mean? Who says that? Haig? Sheffield? You? Why should such a statement be uttered? What are the inherent consequences of such a statement? Why send my granddad in to try and sort out those consequences and such buffoonery and have him killed in doing so? Are you suggesting that if a man is appointed to the level of Commander in Chief that he is then given carte blanch to waste up to 7.5 million lives in doing what he thinks is right without question nor consequence = and then be given a monetary gift from the public purse and not to be held to account?

The past is not a foreign whatever. Glib and trendy as it may sound - it's not relevant- so lets stop throwing sound bites about.

[peterhogg]

Lets look at this. What's wrong with being "casualty intolerant"? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me - as it did to medieval leaders fighting greater forces and using strategies relevant to their circumstances. Skirmish, guerrilla ambushes, as the Welsh did to the invading Norman/English for centuries between 1087 -1415. The Welsh never fought a pitch battle against the English due to the disproportionate population size. The war continued for over 250 years. We knew this 800 years ago. Hadn't the military command learnt this lesson of attrition by 1914? What on earth does "Haig implicitly accepted that there would be heavy losses amongst his own troops" mean? Who says that? Haig? Sheffield? You? Why should such a statement be uttered? What are the inherent consequences of such a statement? Why send my granddad in to try and sort out those consequences and such buffoonery and have him killed in doing so? Are you suggesting that if a man is appointed to the level of Commander in Chief that he is then given carte blanch to waste up to 7.5 million lives in doing what he thinks is right without question nor consequence = and then be given a monetary gift from the public purse and not to be held to account?

The past is not a foreign whatever. Glib and trendy as it may sound - it's not relevant- so lets stop throwing sound bites about.

Yeah, let's look at it. For starters, I think the Germans are rather more responsible for the casualties than Haig, so why not focus your harangue on them? Secondly, what has this do to with a cash award to Haig after the allied victory? Is all this about the cheque? Really? If the Haig family drops one in the mail, will that cover it? Honestly. Wars happen, people die. Get over it. And what do some medieval Welshmen have to do with this?

[phil andrade]

Geraint ,

At least you had a good stab at opining about Sheffield's statement.

You did not flinch from the challenge.

And, however much I disagree with you, your courage and convictions win my respect

Your argument strikes me as being profoundly flawed.

The emotions run high when we discuss Haig.

This is a real " Hero to Zero" story, isn't it ?

It seems to me that Haig is reviled for what he represents, rather than for what he actually was or for what he actually did.

I can understand why. Truth to tell, I confess to a visceral repulsion myself when I contemplate his role : all the more so because he embodied the class structure and social mores of his era. All the more so on account of his taciturn and rather detached demeanour. And then I realise that I am being very unfair.

Lloyd George did much to trash Haig's reputation. How do politicians fare in your reckoning ? Today's revelations about supression of information regarding discussions between a British PM and a US president are a timely reminder of the role of statesmen as opposed to that of soldiers.

Will we ever be able to view the Great War with equanimity ? Perhaps it will be a sad day when we can.

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

Geraint:

The Welsh never fought a pitch battle against the English due to the disproportionate population size.

This is a digression but relevant.

Straight question:

What is the evidence for this statement please?

[towisuk]

What is good about leadreship if you shoot your own men for not doing as they're told???

The Australians didn't need that type of sentence to turn them into an excellent fighting force....

So what was the excuse of the British High command for doing it?

Surely it can be considered "Bad Leadership" to resort to that....

regards

Tom

Edited 2 June , 2014 by Alan Curragh
Modern political reference removed

[David Filsell]

Gearing

When the tactics and more particularly technology assisting defence is better than that of defence, heavy losses by the attackers are inevitable. That was the case that Haig faced. Others generals have also faced it. I think you need to read more, although like you I know every death is a disaster.

[David Filsell]

Damn it I am again falling for it and wasting time with a futile arguement. I do it every time. Apologies I will keep out of this and get a beer.

[PhilB]

On 02/06/2014 at 20:22, David Filsell said:

When the tactics and more particularly technology assisting defence is better than that of defence, heavy losses by the attackers are inevitable.

There was a long discussion of this many years ago when the forum was young!

 

 

[Jack Sheldon]

Tom (Post 167)

Everybody is being polite to you but, before you go on sounding off again and continuing to post rants, your first sentence in the above post demonstrates that you know not of that which you write and you need to expand your reading and thus your knowledge. I refer in particular to, 'the Australians did not need that type of sentence to turn them into an excellent fighting force ...'. You clearly believe that to be the case, but you can only hold that opinion by bringing to bear a mind uncluttered by the facts. The situation was quite different.

Let me start by paying tribute to the fighting qualities and proven track record on the battlefield of the soldiers from Australia, but that does not blind me to their disciplinary record. Military Law in Australia was almost the same as that which applied to the British army. Courts martial of Australian soldiers by Australian officers could and did pass down death sentences. In total there were 113 such sentences: three were for cowardice in the face of the enemy, two each for striking a superior officer and disobeying a lawful command. The remainder were for cases of desertion. However, the difference was that sentences on Australians had to be confirmed by the (British) Governor General of Australia and he chose always to commute them, despite the fact that numerous senior Australian generals would have preferred that sanction to be applied in an attempt to get a firm grip on the disciplinary lapses in that contingent. Here are a couple examples:

The Australians made up rather less than 10% of the British army, but contributed 25% of the deserters and the rate of custodial sentences handed down to Australian soldiers was almost ten times greater than for the British army as whole.

As for, 'shooting your own men for not doing what they were told', of the 3,080 men condemned to death, only 346 were not commuted and, of those, a mere five were for disobeying a lawful command.

Jack

[geraint]

Connor, on 02 Jun 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

Wars happen, people die. Get over it.

And what do some medieval Welshmen have to do with this?

Connor.

Wars do not "happen" They are caused. Tell that to Tony Blair and the WMD dodgy dossier episode in 2003. People died.

Medieval Welshmen? Happens that many people like to say that we 'learn from history.' So lets learn. The Welsh learnt from early on that a small population facing a far larger one had to utilise it's military force in an efficient way. Read Gerald Cambrensis 1188 A Journey Through Wales and he was providing the English Monarch with a detailed description of Welsh strategies and informing him how to deal with them. Lessons in military strategy which Edward I utilised and conquered Wales in 1282. In other words a military commander should think strategies in the broadest sense - Edward I did so but Haig didn't.

[geraint]

PJA, on 02 Jun 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

Geraint ,

It seems to me that Haig is reviled for what he represents, rather than for what he actually was or for what he actually did.

I can understand why. Truth to tell, I confess to a visceral repulsion myself when I contemplate his role : all the more so because he embodied the class structure and social mores of his era. All the more so on account of his taciturn and rather detached demeanour. And then I realise that I am being very unfair.

Lloyd George did much to trash Haig's reputation. How do politicians fare in your reckoning ? Today's revelations about supression of information regarding discussions between a British PM and a US president are a timely reminder of the role of statesmen as opposed to that of soldiers.

Will we ever be able to view the Great War with equanimity ? Perhaps it will be a sad day when we can.

Phil (PJA)

Thank you for your comments Phil. I also appreciate your stance and comments in both this thread and numerous other threads on the Forum.

You may well be right in your statement "Haig reviled for what he represents..." To be honest this "visceral" feeling would have been manifest in me regardless of who was the CiC. Haig/French or who ever. The same applies to the politicians. Although those self same family members of mine idolised and supported Lloyd George and the Liberal party - I personally, hold him as responsible as Haig for the social tragedies unleashed on Europe in 1914-19. The Blair/Bush 2003 bit is, as you say, extremely relevant to the political and military relationship. During war - there is no discernible difference between both. The political willl is carried out by the military force.

This GWForum is a b*loody brilliant place isn't it?

[geraint]

Geraint:

The Welsh never fought a pitch battle against the English due to the disproportionate population size.

This is a digression but relevant.

Straight question:

What is the evidence for this statement please?

Hi Grumpy

Disproportionate population size?

Henry II and his various sons commanded an empire stretching from the Pyrenees to the Rhine to Carlisle. Wales was of a disproportionate size in comparison. Henry could command armies of thousands. Gruffydd ab Cynan the King of Gwynedd could put a body guard of 150 together and call up an aristocratic force of about a thousand.

There are no recorded set piece pitched battles noted in any part of Wales where a Welsh leader led an army against an English French Norman army at all. Owain Glyndwr in 1403 came closest - Battle of Maes Glas and Pilleth. Forces of around two thousand English against a similar Welsh army. That's it! The other four hundred years was guerrilla, small scale harrying and sieges and burnings, an English chevauchee answered by a Welsh sacking of Hereford or Shrewsbury or wherever.

[AlanCurragh]

Please - no more mentions of Blair/Bush and references to modern wars

Thanks

Alan