Coalitions, Politicians & Generals

[RodB]

subtitle is "Some Aspects of Command in Two World Wars".

I'm up to page 115 and so far they have described Henry Wilson first as "politically capable" but later a "charlatan"; presented Pershing as very capable in creating an army from scratch whose performance was comparable to Kitchener's new army; presented Sir John French as militarily capable but placed in an impossible political situation by unclear orders from Kitchener, who doesn't come out too well.

Asquith is presented as a lazy womanizer, LLoyd George as a brilliant political operator but intellectually lazy - never took the trouble to learn military affairs, unlike Churchill. Hence there was a great divide in British command structures between the political and the military, never satisfactorily resolved.

Haig comes across as a smooth political operator with friends in all the right places but no brains.. the book's analysis of Passchendaele, where Rawlinson and Plumer's preliminary analysis on the need to take strategic heights immediately before the battle proper can commence is ignored, or perhaps not even understood. Gough is presented as having been shafted by Haig as a scapegoat. The battle is presented as Haig wanting to grab his first and only attempt to win a great battle alone, i.e. without the French or US, and incorrectly presenting various benefits of clearing Flanders as justifications.

The authors claim that the shortrange submarine menace was by then minor, and that anyway they would not be eliminated, they would just move back to German bases.

Kiggle is presented as not having the moral courage to confront Haig with Gough and Plumer's misgivings.

Comments anybody ?

[squirrel]

There appears to be nothing new there then.

[truthergw]

subtitle is "Some Aspects of Command in Two World Wars".

.......................

Comments anybody ?

These seem to be viable conclusions, given the books I have read. Not startlingly original but hard to refute. I think there is always going to be a tension between the political leaders of a democracy at war,who are answerable to the people and the high command who are , hopefully, seeking military solutions to military problems. Churchill does not have a good record in military affairs. His metier was politics of the charismatic kind and possibly should have concentrated on that. I have given up, temporarily at least, trying to pigeonhole Haig. The one thing we should not lose sight of is that he won. The troops of whom he was CinC played a vital role in the final defeat of the Central Powers.