Haig's Post War 'Rewards' ?

[Steven Broomfield]

I disagree Phil. Humanity hasn't changed. People are vicious and horrible towards one another today; as they were a hundred years ago.

I'd agree with the first part, although more enlightened times have (for example) done away with bear-baiting and hanging people; as for the second, insert the words "Some - a minority of" before the word "People" and I'd agree.

The vast majority of people now, as for ever, get on with their lives, generally honestly, generally uncomplainingly and generally in a spirit of co-operation. Some don't, and it is those who make headlines.One seldom reads of women NOT being stoned to death, or schoolgirls NOT being kidnapped, though I'm sure it must happen every day.

No, people don't change ... most are good, some are bad. the bad ones (The Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin) just seem to make more impact. This is not intended as a political post, but my inate conservatism (small C) makes me believe that man is generally good and will do the right thing when offered an opportunity. Most often it is a perversion of a belief set (Nazism, Communism and others) which leads to Bad Things happening.

[PhilB]

Getting more cynical as I get older, I suspect that the decision to go to war in 1914 probably came from a collection of grandees in a (cigar) smoke filled room rather in the way that Alec Douglas Home was chosen decades later. As always, we never knew who the grandees were but they were the great and the good and it is quite possible that, in 1914, they included politicians, aristocrats, royals & generals. We`ll probably never know.

[Steven Broomfield]

Bless you, Phil. Only you could equate the appointment of Baillie Vass (and who's old enough to remember that jibe from Lord Gnome) with the decision to declare war.

Getting more cynical as I get older, I suspect that the decision to go to war in 1914 probably came from a collection of grandees in a (cigar) smoke filled room rather in the way that Alec Douglas Home was chosen decades later. As always, we never knew who the grandees were but they were the great and the good and it is quite possible that, in 1914, they included politicians, aristocrats, royals & generals. We`ll probably never know.

[PhilB]

Thanks for the benediction. I do consider both the appointment of a PM and a declaration of war to be among the more important decisions to be taken on our behalf, though I wouldn`t actually equate them. I have seen enough smoke filled room decisions even at local council level to doubt if things get less "dodgy" (as in dossiers) higher up.

[keithmroberts]

Those with access to JSTOR might find this interesting: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20096738?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104252692003

The British Cabinet's Decision for War, 2 August 1914

K. M. Wilson

British Journal of International Studies
Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jul., 1975), pp. 148-159
Published by: Cambridge University Press

[peterhogg]

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.

Well, obviously they are caused by something, like everything else, but they nevertheless "happen". And when they happen, as in the course of the Great War, people are going to die, usually due to the fact that one of the tactics involved in a war is killing the other side. This is not a debate over the cause or causes of that war and for the purposes of this thread all that matters here is that it did happen. (Unless you now feel Haig was somehow responsible for that part also)

The question here is Haig's entitlement to an award, implicit from the slyly loaded opening post that noted Haig received a large award of money in recognition of his service.

Invoking the events of 2003, aside from being off-limits, doesn't really make much sense and doesn't do much to advance your argument. Using the issue as a spring-board for a general indictment of Haig and holding him personally responsible for the deaths of millions is simplistic, and quite frankly dishonest. It smacks of politics, not history. Nor did he "kill" your Grandfather. Again, the Germans seem to be missing from this equation, which is a rather glaring omission.

Let's cut to the chase, since debates about Haig's tactics will simply go on and on and on and on, how about addressing the next question that logically flows from the post: I'm going out on a limb here and am guessing you don't think Haig should have received payment. What is the remedy then?

[phil andrade]

The remedy is not to pay him.

What repercussions will that have ?

Pretty dire, I reckon.

Of course, Haig could turn down the award....but then he's making a quixotic gesture that in itself could open a can of worms.

How badly does Haig need the money ?

Phil (PJA)

[David Filsell]

Oh dear"

!

[hazelclark]

Getting more cynical as I get older, I suspect that the decision to go to war in 1914 probably came from a collection of grandees in a (cigar) smoke filled room rather in the way that Alec Douglas Home was chosen decades later. As always, we never knew who the grandees were but they were the great and the good and it is quite possible that, in 1914, they included politicians, aristocrats, royals & generals. We`ll probably never know.

An early version of the Bilderberg Group?

H.C.

[Muerrisch]

for "cynical" read "realistic" in my old book.

[Terry_Reeves]

It's interesting Phil is unable to produce any evidence to support his opinion. There is plenty of material around to show what happened and the whole business has been investigated umpteen times by historians. Phil I'm afraid is still stuck in his class-warfare time warp.

TR

[Muerrisch]

which bitter Phil ....... there are two above?

[Terry_Reeves]

That's Phil of posts 177 and 179 David.

TR

[phil andrade]

which bitter Phil ....... there are two above?

Are both Phils bitter, then ?

Mild and bitter, please !

Phil (PJA)

[Muerrisch]

No offense meant, a grammatical/ logical/ syntax error.

Mine's a 'Mother-in-Law': Stout and Bitter! Stirred but not shaken.

[PhilB]

It's interesting Phil is unable to produce any evidence to support his opinion.

TR

It`s in the nature of smoke filled room decisions that evidence is not available. You`ll see I said "I suspect", not "I believe" - that`s the nature of cynicism. Things may have been all straightforward and above board but the decisions determining our entry into recent conflicts would suggest otherwise. Unless politics has changed, of course!

[Terry_Reeves]

Phil

Are you saying then that cynicism can be used to avoid informed debate? By the way, I notice you have avoided "aristocracy, royals and generals" mentioned in your original post. Does cynicism mean that you don't have to justify that comment either?

TR

[PhilB]

Yes. I feel free to express a suspicion of what may have happened in those times based upon what has happened in recent years. It would be naïve to think that all discussions were made public. And it seems not improbable that Royalty and the aristocracy had more influence in those days than now. I am happy to accept that you suspect otherwise!

[tumbi1]

I think that to a great extent we are still influenced by the views of Lloyd-George, that master-assasin of other men's reputations.

People who know very little about the Great War think they know that Haig and various other generals were some kind of war-criminals, but I hope that the centenary of the war will cause more people to question these views, do plenty of research, and realise that nothing about WW1 is simple - everything is complicated and nuanced. The generals had a very steep learning-curve; with a new type of war and with new technologies it took them a while to learn their craft. Initially a Haig-hater, the more I learn about Haig, the more convinced I am that he ranks with Wellington and Marlborough as one of three greatest British generals.

William

Can someone confirm or deny that Haig actually said this in the mid twenties;

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.

If he actually did say this (or think along those lines), he has actually spoken volumes and deserves all the criticism he has received since the war. I have seen this quote a number of times, and considering he was still trying to create a cavalry break through right to the end of the war I dare say he did at least think this. I won't go into a long tirade against Haig as it has been done better by others, and this quote has basically said enough. I think Haig gets singled out in Commonwealth countries as he was their leader, but IMO his brand of incompetence was common on both sides of the lines. Very few come out of that war with solid reputations.

I have seen people ask "who could have done a better job"? One example is Monash - I don't say this because I am Australian, and I don't think Monash was perfect, but he did a lot better job of planning battles than someone like Haig, although obviously not to the same scale. There are others but I want to keep this short. I am just amazed that there can still be any controversy regarding Haig, or his generation of high ranking officers. Anything that results in the number of cemeteries there are in France and Belgium has serious flaws.

[speake]

Tumbi1, what is the source of the quote?

[paulgranger]

With respect, and only with regard to the ending of the Great War, what other arm of service could have exploited a breach in the German lines, at speed? The heavy infantry tank moved very slowly, and Whippets, for all their name implies, couldn't do better than 8 miles an hour. True, use was made of armoured cars, once road conditions allowed, but they were in small numbers, and effective only locally. Regarding the quote from Haig, I have seen it before, but do not know its source, or if he did actually say it, and in what context.

[MikeMeech]

Can someone confirm or deny that Haig actually said this in the mid twenties;

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.

If he actually did say this (or think along those lines), he has actually spoken volumes and deserves all the criticism he has received since the war. I have seen this quote a number of times, and considering he was still trying to create a cavalry break through right to the end of the war I dare say he did at least think this. I won't go into a long tirade against Haig as it has been done better by others, and this quote has basically said enough. I think Haig gets singled out in Commonwealth countries as he was their leader, but IMO his brand of incompetence was common on both sides of the lines. Very few come out of that war with solid reputations.

I have seen people ask "who could have done a better job"? One example is Monash - I don't say this because I am Australian, and I don't think Monash was perfect, but he did a lot better job of planning battles than someone like Haig, although obviously not to the same scale. There are others but I want to keep this short. I am just amazed that there can still be any controversy regarding Haig, or his generation of high ranking officers. Anything that results in the number of cemeteries there are in France and Belgium has serious flaws.

Hi

First Monash was a 'Corps' Commander who had an Army Commander above him and then it was Haig, who commanded five Armies, so a different command role entirely (the higher you go the more 'political' problems you face whether with your home government or your allies), success at one level does not mean success at another. All had their staff officers to do their battle planning (see 'The Men who planned the War' by Paul Harris, Ashgate, 2016). All Corps contributed to and benefitted from the BEF training system for new tactics and weapons, the 'BEF' was changing (as were other army's) throughout the war trying to keep up with the changes in warfare and the limitations of technology, particularly communications.

The British Cavalry (the most modern and flexible in Europe before and during the war), like the infantry, had to adapt to the conditions of the Western Front battlefield (see 'Horsemen in No Man's Land' by David Kenyon. Pen & Sword, 2011) and from fairly early on they operated with armoured cars, cyclists and aeroplanes, then alongside tanks. Tanks did not replace cavalry in WW1, or between the wars for many years, the Soviet Union used cavalry throughout the Great Patriotic War 1941-45. Also motor transport did not replace horsed transport and the technology of the day could not operate very well over rough terrain. Tanks were unreliable and short ranged (aeroplanes could not operate in bad weather/visibility and had other technical problems as well), also vulnerable to artillery (which is why tank units had aeroplanes attached to support them including attacking guns used in the anti-tank role), tank unit commanders had sometimes to resort to riding horses to keep in contact with their tank sections. I believe that Kenyon thinks that the problem for British Cavalry during the 100 Days was there were not enough of them to undertake the tasks required.

High casualties on the Western Front during WW1 were a result of the large scale constant fighting. Haig was not around on the Eastern front during WW2 but the Germans and Soviets managed to fill even larger graveyards without him, again due to the large scale of the fighting, tanks and the aeroplane on that front did not reduce casualties.

Mike

[squirrel]

IIRC the quote is taken from one of Haig's post war speeches - as the British Army did not start to become effectively mechanised in the proper sense until the 1930's then in the context of the time it is not too far from the truth. As Paul says, what other branch could deploy effectively, at speed, once a breakthrough had been achieved?

As for being responsible for the casualties, Haig never denied that the war would cost thousands of lives. But, as it was not possible to go over, around or under the German lines then what other means rather than a frontal infantry attack, supported by artillery, tanks and aircraft was there?

Also bear in mind that any man could make decisions, or not make decisions, resulting in the death of other men and this goes for every rank from the humble Private up to Field Marshal.

[David Filsell]

Equally, and perhaps even more tellingly, why are none of the Army commanders, Plumer, Rawlinson, Gough, Horne, Byng, similarly reviled? Did they have no role in the formation and execution of Haig's policies and plans?

Having feasted on the Haig chestnuts, shoulld any of the more open minded be interested, I would be delighted to send them details and information about The Haig Fellowship, of which I am a trustee. The objectives are, primarily, to recognise and evaluate the BEF, it's commanders and Haig's role in the Great War. Obviously the closed minded need not bother me.

David

[towisuk]

As the original poster on this topic....I can't say that I'm surprised by some of the reaction to my initial post. The fact that a certain poster is being classed as being "stuck in his class-warfare time warp" shows the lack of respect for another persons point of view. I too think that even today there are people put on a pedestal purely for the fact that they were born "with connections" or given a title.

Of course we live with hindsight....but I think there is nothing wrong with criticising or questioning a decision made that benefits a man that was well behind the lines when the fighting started on the Somme.

And what the families of men who were slaughtered or the men themselves who were left suffering from the horrible wounds they received "at the sharp end" of the fight.

It's fine to say things were different then... but even then, there was a moral duty to care for ALL who served in the forces. I didn't realise until now that there is a "Haigs apologists fellowship" that wants to perpetuate the myth of Haig as a leader.

A TRUE LEADER would not have to have men shot at dawn as a warning to others to follow THEIR rules, now that is not distorting history....it's a fact that this was done by supposed leaders to their own men.

So post war Haig got his rewards, and the men who fought in, and survived the trenches got what???

regards

Tom