Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 20 February , 2006 Share Posted 20 February , 2006 Tom You said: "In a democracy, the most senior military figures will have to work closely with the government. They will become ipso facto politicians. Trouble is, politicians will start fancying themselves to be generals." I'll drink to that mate. I often wondered if Michael Jackson could do the moonwalk while entering Kosovo. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 I think Kitchener was that most intruiging of people, an enigma. He certainly was a soldier, but was he that good, or just lucky. He certainly wasn't a politician, but as a figurehead and inspiration (see Prime Ministers) he was adopted by the politicians, quick smart. I think part of his mystique was his self admission that he hadn't spent much time in the mother country (in 1914 he was quoted as saying he hadn't spent Christmas in England for forty years). That combined with his reputation and immense presence created a mystique of "the wanderer or prodigal son returned, from lands afar to save the nation". I think the people felt comforted by that ( somewhat like The Germans and Hindenberg). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 Spike, agree in part with what you say but I reckon if you look at Kitchener's record in Egypt, South Africa and India he was a politician as well as a soldier. He had to be in the situations that he had to deal with and pretty successful at both roles as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMcNay Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 Here's a question I've seen asked before and would be interested in everyone's take on it. Given Kitcheners involvement with the peace settlement after the Boer War, where he gave certain concessions to the Boers, do you think the Armistice terms given to the Germans would have been any different if he had been involved? Of course, it is entirely possible that by 1918, if he had lived, he would not have been in a position to be involved at all.... Discuss (20 points). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 DMcNay G'day mate Your question presupposes that Kitchener would have been War Minister at Versailles in 1919 - something that is not bourne out by history. He was sent to Russia to get him out of England. The fix was on and he was almost gone. Regardless of his aura prior to the Great War, he was discovered to be a dud when it came to running his department. Llyd George wanted him gone and tried to ease him out gently without causing a revolution amongst the masses which would have embarrassed him. So the trip to Russia was a convenient excuse to get rid of him from England for a while. The Hindenburg analogy by Spike sits well here about aura. The Germans obligingly fired Kitchener thus saving Lloyd George the task. Once the crocodile tears washed away, it was business as usual in Britain with Lloyd George giving secret thanks to the Germans. So to answer your question - it is moot. Had Kitchener lived, he would have been Viceroy of India with a special duty to oversee the safety of toops from Australia and New Zealand. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 22 February , 2006 Share Posted 22 February , 2006 DMcNay G'day mate ....................... and tried to ease him out gently without causing a revolution amongst the masses which would have embarrassed him. ......................... Cheers Bill A politician who cared what the electorate thought, even after the election. Now, there's a novel idea! I think we should encourage the spread of that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMcNay Posted 22 February , 2006 Share Posted 22 February , 2006 It'll never catch on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 22 February , 2006 Share Posted 22 February , 2006 Quote from Tony Lund; Should we class him as a politician and fair game? Or a serving soldier and consequently a war casualty? Both, and as a consequence of which the conduct of the war during the first year(s) suffered eg From the majority report of the Dardanelles Commission “(n) We are of the opinion that Lord Kitchener did not sufficiently avail himself of the services of his General Staff, with the result that more and more work was undertaken by him that was possible for one man to do, and confusion and want of efficiency resulted.” In his minority memorandum Mr Walter Roch M.P. spells it out even more clearly “The military strategy and conduct of the war were under the complete and sole control of Lord Kitchener. He, in effect, combined in himself the functions and duties of Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief. Under his regime the General Staff was not consulted and really ceased to exist. Lord Kitchener was attended at the War Council by Sir James Wolfe Murray, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. At these Councils Sir Jas. Wolfe Murray stated that he neither gave nor was asked for any opinion.” The above conclusions were arrived at despite the government doing its level best to protect its self from being pilloried for having allowed Kitchener to carry on like this; to protect their/his name they “appointed the Attorney-General, F. E. Smith (later Lord Birkenhead), as counsel for the deceased Kitchener. Clearly if the evidence was going to go heavily against Kitchener, the government would be equally open to censure, and they were taking steps to head off that difficulty.” [frm ‘A Soldier’s Life’ by John Lee] regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 22 February , 2006 Share Posted 22 February , 2006 if you look at Kitchener's record in Egypt, South Africa and India he was a politician as well as a soldier Fair comment, it was, I suppose a sort of Tony Blair/ Mrs T politics, I'll get in to a position of power and then just go my own way, do everything myself...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Kitchener was a one man band without ever delegating meaningful jobs. The tough assignments were always given out without thorough instructions or planning. Because he was a one man band, he doled out patronage with glee. The list of generals in command changed dramatically after 1915 - coincidentally after he left for Russia. Lemnos is a practical illustration of his style. With the permission of the Greek government of Venizelos the British were given access to occupy Lemnos. On Tuesday, 15 February 1915, without any written instructions, Rear Admiral Wemyss was ordered to proceed to Lemnos and assume the title of Governor. He arrived on Thursday, 4 March 1915 without staff, supplies, wharf and adequate water. In addition there was resentment from the fiercely independent local politicians were horrified that their demesne was donated to the British without consultation with anyone. Wemyss’ new domain was an island whose only asset was the large, exposed natural harbour of Mudros. So poorly supplied was it that Wemyss was forced to live on board an old ship. Then 5,000 Australians arrived, followed by the Naval Division and a French Division. No one knew why they were there or how to provide for them. Somewhere along the line, Hamilton, Kitchener's fall guy was meant to make sense out of all this chaos. Ad hoc planning led to the deaths of 40,000 men at Gallipoli for no strategic gain but certainly a whole lot of loss of lustre from the mighty British navy. While Kitchener might not have personally agreed but the German navy did the British a great service. Sad that so many other good people on board the ship had to perish with him. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Kitchener was, above all, very complex. Wether he was "good" or "bad" is perhaps what Historians will always argue about great and influencial men ... (the "great" meaning large in social context) I am reading Kitchener's War right now and it presents a man with many issues and talents ... one with an incredible sense of both duty and ambition. His is proving both interesting and worthy of more study. At the level he was at since, perhaps, 1894 he was both military and politician ... even if one has only a field command .... at the Army level or above ... you've got to be both ... [insert my three or four ACW examples] In every major campaign I've researched about the BEF in WWI, I see more and more political action not merely between British and French, but among the British staff ... So, in conclusion, I believe the distinction is meaningless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Bill is quite correct; Kitchener = a one man band He was ideal material for a small off-shore island trying hard to control half the world during the 19th century: Egypt and the Sudan were right up his street And in fairness to him he would certainly have preferred to be back there But he was totally unsuited to the 20th century and a conflict between developed, industrialised, European states employing enormous armies massed against each other from the North Sea and the Baltic, right down to the Mediterranean. The Dardanelles Commission again “Sir James Murray stated that the portion of the Field Service Regulations which deals with the duties of the Chief of the General Staff were ‘practically non-existent.’ On being asked whether he considered that Lord Kitchener centralised too much authority in his own person, he replied, ‘Yes, I do undoubtedly,’ and he added that the excessive centralization of which he complained ‘was due to the personality of the individual who was Secretary of State.’ General Callwell, the Director of Military Operations, stated that ‘the real reason why the General Staff practically ceased to exist was because it was not consulted.’ He added that, so far as he was aware, Lord Kitchener never ‘conferred with anyone very much.’ General Callwell considered that the extreme centralisation practiced ‘did not tend to the smooth working of the machine.’” Example: ‘Conclusions……… (j) On the 20th February Lord Kitchener decided that the XXIXth Division, part of the troops which by the decision of [the War Council] of February 16th were to have been sent to the East, should not be sent at that time, and Colonel Fitzgerald by his order instructed the Director of Naval Transports that the transports for that division and the rest of the Expeditionary Force would not be required. This was done without informing the First Lord, and the despatch of the troops was thus delayed for three weeks. This delay gravely compromised the probability of success of the original attack made by the land forces, and materially increased the difficulties encountered in the final attack some months later.” Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill Woerlee Posted 24 February , 2006 Share Posted 24 February , 2006 Mates I suppose the answer to the Kitchener conundrum is answered by Lonnie Donegan: Does your chewing gum lose its flavour On the bedpost overnight If your mother says don't chew it Do you swallow it in spite Can you catch it on your tonsils Can you heave it left and right Does your chewing gum lose its flavour On Kichner's outpost overnight Answer that and the whole debate is settled. Cheers Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now