Alternative History - If Smith-Dorrien Replaced French

[Dever Mayfly]

Next week I am giving an Centenary Armistice talk and will suggest that if Smith-Dorrien had not been sacked by French in 1915, we might not be commemorating the war in the way we do. S-D was an infantry officer (Sherwood Foresters) who came closer to death than most when he was one of a few survivors of the Battle of Isandlwana after he was chased by a troop of Zulu warriors for over twenty miles before crossing the Buffalo river by hanging on to the mane of a loose horse. Briefly, the logic flows thus:

• S-D saw the folly ahead; before the war at a parade in Tidworth he warned that the war "would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated". A witness to this speech said after the war: "In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British general who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust - probably not more than a quarter - learned how right the general's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it.
• S-D was the second senior commander in the BEF and commanded II Corps in a successful defence at Mons and Le Cateau in the first year. 
• However in May 1915, he was relieved of command by French (cavalry) who wished to promote Haig (also Cavalry) a more offensive minded Corps Commander (i.e. willing to waste lives)
• If however, Kitchener and Robertson had removed French and replaced him with S-D, far fewer lives would have been lost and the Armistice might have occured at least two years earlier, albeit with a stalemate that allowed political leaders negotiate a more equitable treaty.
• If the war had ended in 1916, there might have been no Stalin or Hitler.  Europe would not have been indebted to the USA and the Great War might have been thought of in the same category as the Crimean War not as the War to End All Wars i.e. largely forgotten.

I know that "if and buts" are not reality; however the usefulness of alternative histories is like the lessons learned process, it shows that fate can be changed with the right decision-making and that gives hope for the future.  I would be grateful for members views on whether S-D should have replaced French as CINC BEF?

 

[Don Regiano]

Watch out!  Here comes the cavalry (the Airbrush Brigade) ....

[Ron Clifton]

I don't think that FM French "wished to promote Haig" to succeed him, although his dismissal of SD made Haig as virtually the inevitable choice when French was obliged to resign.

 

SD was also noted for having a mercurial temper (as indeed did French) whereas Haig's phlegmatic character made him less susceptible to erratic mood swings. It is reputed that Forestier-Walker (SD's Chief of Staff) tried to send in his papers as he found SD impossible to deal with.

 

You should also remember that SD was appointed to command in East Africa but that his health broke down and he could not continue in command. Even if this was largely due to the African climate, it must throw doubt on how long SD could have borne the responsibility of being C-in-C of the BEF.

 

An even more interesting alternative history can be developed if you assume that Sir James Grierson had not died suddenly on the way to the front in August 1914.

 

Ron

[Jervis]

1 hour ago, Dever Mayfly said:

 

• If however, Kitchener and Robertson had removed French and replaced him with S-D, far fewer lives would have been lost and the Armistice might have occured at least two years earlier, albeit with a stalemate that allowed political leaders negotiate a more equitable treaty.
• If the war had ended in 1916, there might have been no Stalin or Hitler.  Europe would not have been indebted to the USA and the Great War might have been thought of in the same category as the Crimean War not as the War to End All Wars i.e. largely forgotten.

 

 

I think the two points above are overstating the importance of the CIC role. It was the politicians responsibility to go to war and to make peace. The military's job was to execute the government's military strategy. 

 

SD would have been in a position to inform the government via the war secretary and "possibly" influence thinking but in a very limited capacity. 

 

In my opinion, It is a big leap to say he would have changed government thinking and shorten the war. 

[Jervis]

Another point I'd make is during the second battle of Ypres, SD demonstrated that he was very willing to waste the lives of his soldiers in offensives that had no chance of success. Both French and SD were aware the offensives would fail but carried on regardless in order to obey their political master and maintain good relations with France. 

 

SD made no protest to French over the offensives and was sacked for "suggesting" a withdrawal to a defensive line.  

[Dever Mayfly]

I am not certain those lives were wasted if they effectively saved France from defeat.  Perhaps "suggesting a withdrawal to a defensive line" was as much of a protest as S-D could make at the time.  In London, there was a heated argument about ending the war in 1915 and those on the front line knew about this.  A school teacher born in Toxteth, who joined the KRRC, Charles Eyre, wrote at the time of Second Ypres: "All of us here are willing to go through with it, but we have a rather haunting fear that the people (or the politicians) at home, perhaps even out of a misplaced pity for us, may be willing to call it a draw.  If you lose all your friends, don't tolerate a draw."   He died leading his platoon in the assault at Loos.

 

On S-D's relationship with French, one has to remember that they were chalk and cheese.  French was a big hand on small map type of commander, whereas S-D was a methodical man of detail, who sought technical solutions.  There is also the clash of morals; S-D did not respect French who was a womaniser and adulterer.   

 

Interesting point about Grierson...

 

[Jervis]

A interesting point is the subsequent poor relationship between Haig and Lloyd George. DLG did feel Haig wasted lives unnecessarily. DLG even held back men from Haig fearing he would just waste their lives - only releasing them following the Kaiser offensive. 

 

What is relevant is the prime minster was not prepared to throw away lives unnecessarily but nor was he willing to accept anything other than an Allied victory. So even if DLG (or Asquith) worked with a more liked minded person such as SD there is no evidence government policy would have changed to shorten the war through negotiation. 

Edited 27 October , 2018 by Jervis

[Jervis]

1 hour ago, Dever Mayfly said:

I am not certain those lives were wasted if they effectively saved France from defeat.  Perhaps "suggesting a withdrawal to a defensive line" was as much of a protest as S-D could make at the time 

 

 

In late April 1915 French & SD wasted thousand of lives in futile daily counter attacks which both men knew in advance had very little chance of success. Foch's objective was for the French troops to win back territory surrendered during the gas attacks on April 22nd. He requested the BEF to support these attacks. 

What transpired was day after day of repeated counter attack - where the French failed to leave their trenches but the BEF attacked against a numerical larger German force without adequate planning, artillery support or the promised assistance from the French attack - the casualties were very large for little or no gain. 

 

Both French and SD knew in advance the futility of the repeated counter attacks. French's overriding objective was to comply with Foch's wishes as instructed by Kitchener. They did not forcefully address the repeated failure of the demoralised French troops to attack. Both men simply complied with Foch's wishes. 

 

So if you go back to your original point of SD being a man who could have changed the course of history and shorten the war. I don't agree based on his conduct during the second Ypres. 

Edited 27 October , 2018 by Jervis

[KONDOA]

SD reached South Africa before returning to Britain due to I'll health, never set foot in East Africa. Forester Walker became commander of the various artillery groups there.

 

Roop

[Steven Broomfield]

What would have happened if Haig's mother had never met Haig's father? Or, rather, what wouldn't have happened?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what comes from these hypothetical 'what if such and such happened' threads. It didn't. Deal with what did happen, not what didn't.

 

As my old mum, a wise woman, said: 'If a fish had wheels it would be a bicycle'.

[RaySearching]

I'm with Steven

 

What If

 You find a book and begin to read it only to discover that it is your life. You get to the point that you are now,

Do you turn the page knowing that you will not be able to change the events to come?

 

Hypothetical Scenarios

Speculating on what might have happened is pointless. You cannot change history or its outcome

 

Were any lessons learnt from the Great War, The War to end all Wars,

Apparently not.

 

I would go as far as to say there will always be Wars it’s in our genes

 

Now if I had won the lottery ten years ago, instead of joining the forum would the forum be richer or poorer? Would I have been happier,  I may never know, but some of the forum members I am sure will have an opinion

[Ken Lees]

I'm with Broomers, too.

 

Isn't there enough of interest that did happen without having to drift off into the realms of fantasy?

[Dever Mayfly]

I understand this forum is more about facts, but the occasional foray into imaginative thinking can widen perspectives; military history is not just antiquarianism.  

[RaySearching]

10 minutes ago, Dever Mayfly said:

but the occasional foray into imaginative thinking can widen perspectives;

 

Maybe this thread will interest you then