Haig?

[armourersergeant]

I read alot about Douglas Haig some good some bad and its all probably true but what i do not seem to see alot is a strong case from any quarters to say who would have replaced him. It seems to me that LG wanted to get Haig out but could not see a genuine replacement.

Has any one heard anything regarding this?

Has anyone got an answer of their own as to who they would have chosen and why?

Arm.

[Malcolm]

I have read in a few books he wanted General Monash to take over.

Aye

Malcolm

[Guest Stoner]

For me it would of had to be Plumer

'An Infantry man in charge of the Infantry', an obscure quote, but one that I remember.

General 'Blimp', but a man who relied on thorough planning and not biting off more than you could chew. From what I have read, he also cared about the well being of the troops, and despised the wasteless 'attack!!! until you can't attack any more', attitude. I believe 'Messines' was one of his brainchilds, though altered because it wasn't "thrusting enough", what he said would happen, did.

I am biased in that any generals whose primary concerns were "casualty lists", can't have been all bad

Mark

[Guest Hill 60]

Plumer is a good choice but what about my favourite, General Sir Ivor Maxse?

Like Plumer, he was meticulous in his planning, just look at what the 18th Division managed to do on the 1st July 1916. Their success was down, in my view, to the methodical way in which they were trained by Maxse.

[Jonathan Saunders]

There was a similar thread not so long ago. If you are talking about at the end of 1915 then either Plumer or Smith-Dorrien were to me, the obvious choices, and to be honest, in my opinion they both had a very good shout to be C-inC in August 1914 as well.

[Guest Hill 60]

If you are talking about at the end of 1915 then either Plumer or Smith-Dorrien were to me, the obvious choices, and to be honest, in my opinion they both had a very good shout to be C-inC in August 1914 as well.

Signals - I had totally overlooked Smith-Dorrien! I read about him long before I got interested in WWI when I was interested in the Zulu War. Smith-Dorrien was one of a handful of white Officers to escape the massacre at Isandlwana on the 22nd January 1879.

[ianw]

S-D's chances were wrecked totally unfairly by French's criticism of him after Le Cateau. As Robertson said "You're for home 'Orace !". That particular "snake" at the beginning of the war simply left too many "ladders" for him to ever climb back.

Surely the brilliant Monash was never a serious contender being a non-professional soldier, an intellectual and a colonial too boot ! He was only a Major-General in 1916.

Importantly , he also had parents of Jewish extraction although I am not sure if Monash practiced the religion at all. I regretfully think this fact alone would have disqualified him from supreme command.

[Mike Steele]

I would have thought that rather than Monash, Birdwood would have made a serious contender later on. He did a decent job with the ANZACs, plus he had a great pedigree in staff work under Kitchener.

Who knows, had Kitchener not died in 1916, perhaps his prodigy might have been C-in-C eventually.

[armourersergeant]

My vote would have gone to Smith-Dorrien but he was never going to be a contender in 1915 as he was at home and then became very sick, wether this is because of the 'shame' he felt i dont know. If anyone is interested see the who's who section and read the bio of him (i wrote it, head swelling).

I think Monasch was very good but was untried at GHQ level and was perhaps not experienced enough, what i am trying to say is was he so good in 1918 because of what he learnt not to do from what he saw about him?

Plummer, strangely i do not find myself drawn to him though i know he had some very good traits.

I read a book on Maxse and found him to come up very good, especially as 18th div commander but did i not read somewhere that he and Monasch argued over tatics and history proved Monasch correct. Mind you i think it was on a Aussie sight?

What about Rawlinson, i used to like him when i first started studying the war but since then i have learned alot about him and he was at times very snide and tried on occasions to apportion blame to his subordinates. One time he even had to go to haig and admit he had lied, this nearly got him sent home and if i remember right he would not have been in command during the Somme!!!

Allenby proved in the desert he could use open ground and good intelliegence but on the western front he got bogged down the same as the rest mind you i think he was constantly looking over his shoulder to Haig who he did not get on with too well.

So conclusion for me....aint got a clue!

Arm.

[Hedley Malloch]

Monash and Currie - it's no contest.

[armourersergeant]

hEDLEY ,

Why Currie?

Monash i can understand but Currie has some doubts, cetainly during 2nd ypres i have read accounts that he did not handle his brigade very well?

That said i do not know much about this guy, fill me in please!

Arm.

[michaeldr]

Monash was Jewish and he practised his religion, attending the synagogue before he left Australia with his troops in 1914. He also had Jewish symbols on his coat-of-arms. He never let his religion get in his way however eg. he always enjoyed going around his men at Christmas time and giving and receiving seasonal wishes with them.

Cutlack, in his forward to the Monash war letters which he edited after the general's death, quotes Basil H. Liddell Hart, "If the war had lasted another year Sir John Monash would certainly have risen to an army command and might even have risen to Commander-in-Chief. He probably had the greatest capacity for command in modern war among all who held command."

By 1918 for Haig, time was certainly running out and by then Monash had demonstrated his ability to learn from his own and others mistakes. Monash would have made a very good replacement but the question is could the establishment have handled it: amateur, colonial and Jewish???

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Andrew P]

I'd like to think that Monash would have fitted that position and done extremely well in it, but unfortunately I think the fact that he was a civilian soldier, of Jewish faith and of German background might have been held against him by the High command.

I recall reading somewhere that Rawlinson, while happy to take credit for Monash's victories didn't like him for the above reasons.(Will have a look for the reference to this)

The more I read about Ivor Maxse, the more I'm impressed with him.

Birdwood would have done o.k. but only if he had his chief of staff General White with him. Birdwood would not have lasted in command of the Australians if he didn't have General White to help him out.

It's no coincidence that White worked alongside Birdwood from the early days of the AIF.

Cheers

Andrew

[Mike Steele]

Monash and Currie - it's no contest.

Was Currie a talented general, or merely lucky enough to be commanding arguably the finest corps in the army ?

[Bryn_Hammond]

Some points to add grist to the mill (and then I'm off on me hols):-

1) Maxse was heavily criticised for his handling of XVIII Corps in March 1918 - I believe I've read somewhere that there were moves to stellenbosch/degum/limoges him. He was made Inspector-General of Training later in 1918 and again, I don't think he felt that was a promotion... even if he did a good job.

2) Arm's comment: 'It seems to me that LG wanted to get Haig out but could not see a genuine replacement' - LG sent Smuts and Maurice Hankey in Jan 1918 to France on this mission and they could find no suitable candidate. They also discovered that the Army (particularly its senior commanders) were fiercely loyal to Haig - and let's face it, they didn't ask Privates and Corporals for their opinions - something LG had to bear in mind for his future dealings. He liked Wilson. The French liked Wilson. Wilson liked the French. Everyone else hated him. ... (OK, I exaggerate...)

3) I agree that Monash stood very little chance of being selected because of his background and (linked to my previous point) if Rawlinson's prejudices meant he would have a problem serving under Monash this would have been a problem for other Army and Corps Commanders too. Would LG have been able to impose Monash on an unco-operative High Command?

4) Claud Jacob (GOC II Corps) was touted as a candidate, so was Hubert Gough. Who can tell me why Claud Jacob was suggested? I know he did a good job in general but ...

I can guess why Gough's name was bandied about - young, a 'thruster' - in my opinion shows what the civilian government knew about the military conduct of the war.

5) Allenby: went to Palestine after Arras where his performance was viewed as less than adequate.

6) Plumer. Plumer's reputation as a methodical general is a typical case of 'its-not-all-black-and-white'. For example, he was, according to Brig-Gen. Davidson, in support of Gough's plans for 31st July 1917 - not exactly 'limited objectives'.

I've run out of time to look at Birdwood and Currie. Currie: too junior and only REALLY proved himself in the latter days of the war when Haig was heading a winning arfmy and ditto Birdwood - also he was'tainted' by Gallipoli and was the newest Army commander in 1918.

I have come across negative views of Haig from Divisional and Corps commanders but I don't believe that any of us could have done any better than Smuts and Hankey in January 1918.

[Annette Burgoyne]

I would go for Plumer, Smith-Dorrien or Maxse.

Regards

Annette

[Tim Birch]

How about Hubert Gough? At first glance he may seem an unlikely candidate having been made the scapegoat for the British being pushed back by the 1918 Michael Offensive. But when consideration is given to the fact that his 5th Army was expected to hold a 42 mile front with just 12 Divisions which on 31st March were 40% understrength, the fact that he was not routed but conducted an ever strengthening fighting retreat finally halting the German advance was surely the mark of a great general? Furthermore he inflicted such serious losses on the Germans in terms of men, material and moral that they never fully recovered, paving the way for the August Entente offensive.

Gough was blamed and dismissed for loosing so much ground, he should have been recognised at the time for halting what was nearly a disaster and the loss of the war. He was not finally vindicated until well after the war.

It is a strange irony of history that successfully fought defensive battles do not receive the same recognition as do successful offensives which very often are built on the foundations of these earlier less glamorous battles.

Good generals win battles be they defensive or offensive. I believe Gough proved himself to be a very capable Army Commander, the question is whether he had the ability to make a good Commander in Chief?

Tim

[jhill]

hEDLEY ,

Why Currie?

Monash i can understand but Currie has some doubts, cetainly during 2nd ypres i have read accounts that he did not handle his brigade very well?

That said i do not know much about this guy, fill me in please!

Arm.

armourer,

I hope you keep the Currie in 2nd Ypres controversy in perspective. There are always disputes about how a General performs in his first battle. Monash, for example, has been the subject of some criticism about his performance in Gallipoli.

In fact, 2nd Ypres made Currie's carreer. It was his performance there that convinced the General Staff that "outlanders" could command Divisions. Of course, his reputation is pretty safe today, and perhaps has grown in recent years, despite popular interest in these petty controversies.

As to the issue about "who, if not Haig?", I consider Lloyd George's Currie and Monash story as a canard. The General Staff would have needed a commander in whom they had confidence, and that meant one of their own. (in my opinion!). The problem facing those making senior appointments in the 1914-1916 period was that after ruling out those who were too old, too inexperienced, or too stupid, there was a limited field left. The pool of peacetime officers was just too small.

Of course, no one would have asked my opinion :-)

[armourersergeant]

Blimey Tim,

Gough as Cin C you'd get linched by the Aussies and most of the army, except perhaps those of 5th Army in 1918 who i believe saw the removal of Gough as an insult to them as well as him.

I have said before on this forum that i think Gough was dealt a very bad hand by History regarding his conduct and that sometimes I believe that he has born the blame for almost all the generals of the great war. In the book of him by Farrar Hockley he makes a good case for Gough being far from an idiot though i am not convinced completely. But i would say this he gets a bad name for 3rd Ypres yet i am sure that both him and Plummer went to Haig and asked him to halt the operation as they saw it was fruitless, they were over ruled.

Arm.

[Andrew P]

In Pederson's biography of Monash he has the following quote from General Sixsmith

"It is questionable whether Monash would have had the authority to command men of experienxce and ability such as Rawlinson, Plumer and Byng......Of one thing I am certain, if Monash had been C-in-C, the scientific study of the attack in trench warfare would have been undertaken much more actively and sooner than under Haig. But that is an unreal supposition because it was late 1916-after the casualties on the Somme-that these studies should have been started-and Monash had certainly not achieved command status by then"

'Monash As Military Commander' by PA Pederson

[Alan Lines]

I don't believe that the outcome would have been that much different had any of the above so far mentioned been appointed C in C. They were almost entirely the products of a system which valued class, etiquette and playing the game etc. above all else. Contacts, background and friendship were far more important than ability ALMOST without exception. This restricted probably 99% of the population from consideration.

Interesting to see Gough's name put forward. Can someone please confirm if I'm right in thinking he was the only Senior Commander not to be given a large gratuity after the War?

[Jonathan Saunders]

Alan, Gough was finally raised to the peerage in the late 1930's I think - I am quite sure it was under George VI. I dont know if a gratuity was included at that time but to the best of my knowledge he was not given one at the end of the first war.

[Alan Lines]

Thanks for that Signals.

[Frank_East]

The comment regarding Monash is interesting.

Monash, it has been said used practices which would now be regarded as modern management practice in his military leadership.

He was one of the few military leaders to go on and have a worthwhile job after the Great War.Monash made a successful career in his appointment as the first Manager of the State of Victoria Electricity Commission and was responsible for the installation and expansion of power plants and the electrification of the State.A vital contribution in the development of the State.

I do not think that he would have found higher employment in the British Army for the simple reason that he was not a member of exclusive "job club",the criteria for entry as laid out by Alan Lines.Moreover his faith would appear to be against him in an era where the results of networking gave better promotion prospects than performance.

Regards

Frank East

[michaeldr]

Frank,

Thanks for the reminder that Monash went on to have such a successful career after the war.

Pre-war he was no slouch either. His studies at university took longer than usual only because he was so strapped for cash. He ended up with a degree in engineering and others in arts and law. He then went on to be one of the very first builders to use reinforced concrete in Australia. His engineering skills and his readiness to adopt new techniques enabled him to quickly understand and exploit many of the new ideas in artillery and mechanical warfare which appeared during WW I.

Because of his advanced technical thinking I am always amused by the following story. He was given permission for a few days leave in London on condition that he was available to return to France at a moment's notice. To facilitate this either a plane or a fast destroyer would be put at his disposal should the need arise. Monash, the modern engineer, turned down the offer of a flight in an aeroplane and opted instead for the more tried and tested transportation offered by the navy!

Regards

Michael D.R.