Field Marshal Sir John French

[ressmex]

I would really like to Know what this CinC did /did not do to warrent his premature replacement by DH, was it the battle of Loos or was it inhouse rivalry in the past I have heard both but am not sure.

Due to the length of time DH spent as CinC, history obviously looks at him in greater detail. Being replaced usually casts a shadow over an individual and can mask the real story. any clarity on the subject out there.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT FIELD MARSHAL HAIG!!!

TOM

[Chris_Baker]

The final straw that led to French's removal was the mismanagement of the reserve Divisions at Loos, but it had been coming for a long time. In particular, French's act of going to the press to complain about lack of ammunition after the mighty failure at Aubers Ridge in May 1915 had annoyed many. His behaviour during the retreat from Mons, when he effectively tried to take the BEF out of the firing line completely and had to be firmly put in his place by Kitchener, had not exactly endeared him to many whose opinion counted.

I get the impression that the French did not hold him in high regard, either.

Don't forget too that he was heavily involved in the Curragh incident just before the war and that many had doubts about his appointment as C-in-C in the first place.

[ressmex]

Cheers Chris but what was the Curragh (Ireland) incident

TOM

[armourersergeant]

It would be nice to say that French was removed due to his excitable attitude and manner that changed witht he wind and his inability to command respect and the ever growing army in a world he was not suited too.

However it is probable he went due to behind the scenes work by Generals and the palace and his angering of the govt.

As for the Curragh. It is a difficult question to answer quickly but you will get a flavour if you see this thread on the Long Long trail here. Its the bio of Wilson but if you read on you will get to a paragraph about the curragh.

The Curragh is one of my favourite topics in the pre 1914 war. It could have been so different if things had taken a different turn.

regards

Arm

[Desmond7]

I would contend you can't have this thread without Haig. Chief whistleblower and intriguer from all I've read?

[Jonathan Saunders]

Tom,

As has already been pointed out Sir John French was sent home after the handling of the Reserves at Loos. Whilst this was the last of a series of errors for which French was ultimately responsible, there has been fresh study on who was to blame for the mishandling of the Battle of Loos with Haig being identified as the principal instigator of failure.

This theory has been put forward by Dr. Nick Lloyd, who is well known in WW1 academic circles and I think has recently moved as a Lecturer/Research Analyst for War Studies at King's College London (please correct me if I am wrong).

I put a précis of Nick's lecture on this subject that he gave at the recent NAM 1915 Conference on my blog, which you can access via blogs on the tool bar near the top of the page. Following are the first and last comment as background info:

"NL offered a reassessment of Loos, traditionally the battle for which Sir John French has been condemned as missing an opportunity because of the placement of the Reserves (XI Corps). NL puts forward that Douglas Haig was solely responsible for the plan and conduct of the battle and that he either misinterpreted or acted against French’s instructions.

A final comment was that Gough commented on Loos in 1926 and said if the attack had to be staged then it should have been a strictly limited battle and not as it was".

To ally the fears of those (that apparently "know the truth" whatever that may mean) and who have expressed a concern regarding uninformed opinions being expressed on this Forum specifically aimed at denegrating Haig, I attach below a CV for Nick, taken from the Centre of First World War Studies website as a verification of his academic standing and obvious qualification to speak on this subject. I would add that the lecture was warmly received by Gary Sheffield who seems to have taken up the mantle from John Terraine for defending Haig's reputation. Also I remember the military historian, Gordon Corrigan, introducing Nick at another lecture 14 months ago as the current foremost historian of the Battle of Loos.

Nick Lloyd graduated in July 2001. He has been fascinated by the past, especially military history, for almost as long as he can remember. His initial interest in the First World War came about through a family connection, Private G.T. Cotterill, 15th Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment (2nd Birmingham), who was killed in action on 27 September 1918, aged 18. Nick Lloyd wrote his undergraduate dissertation on British 25th Division, 1916-18. He has recently finished his PhD on 'The British Expeditionary Force and the Battle of Loos' and is currently revising it for publication.

He is the author of 'Command & Control in 1915: The Example of Lone Tree', Stand To! The Journal of the Western Front Association, No. 74, (September 2005), pp. 5-10; '"With Faith & Without Fear": Sir Douglas Haig's Command of First Army During 1915, Journal of Military History (forthcoming); 'Lord Kitchener and the "Russian News": Reconsidering the Origins of the Battle of Loos', Defence Studies (forthcoming). He is the editor of the Journal of the Centre for First World War Studies.

[PhilB]

There seem to have been two different attitudes towards failing generals. One - he failed, get him out, and two - he unluckily failed due mainly to the faults of those below him and he will learn and be even better in future. The perceived learning curve for a favoured general goes up, the other down! Or is that too cynical? Phil B

[Bob Coulson]

I also feel that French suffered because of his lack of trust/faith in his French counterparts after his first meeting with Lanrezac.

Bob.

[PhilB]

I also feel that French suffered because of his lack of trust/faith in his French counterparts after his first meeting with Lanrezac.

Bob.

And his inability to speak French?

[Chris_Baker]

The scene at the French/Lanrezac meeting has always intrigued me. French who speaks no French meets Lanrezac who speaks no English, while the staff officers waited (no doubt having a quiet snigger) outside. Bizarre.

[sorry I am going into Haig here] Another point of interest. Haig, by every account so inarticulate in his own tongue, spoke French very well and lucidly. There must be some deep psychology there...

[AndyHollinger]

Historical analysis is often pointed and done to prove a hypothesis. This is by-definition. Remember it only covers Some of the Reasoning and some "what could have been."

I prefer to see things as mixtures of reasons. The issue probably had much to do with the lack of good fortunes and the steady erosion of support from both above and below. Nobody can survive in that atmosphere. There is also the organizational fact that once a ball starts rolling, it will gain speed - ie once you question, you will doubt, once you doubt ...

Both the "army" and the gov't lost confidence in him. Hard to quantify or "explain" that ...

The historical debate of which you got a small part is a good process for history, but, remember, it's not all the truth ... it's different slices of what we THINK is an accurate representation of what happened.

Another example is that for the past decade, Longstreet has been in the ascendent role of being the Confederacy's best general, etc. etc. after several generations of genuflecting to Lee. The answer is not that Lee was bad or that Longstreet was better (or even any good) ... but in reading and interpreting the history, we do get a better flavor for what actually went on.

[PhilB]

I prefer to see things as mixtures of reasons. The issue probably had much to do with the lack of good fortunes and the steady erosion of support from both above and below. Nobody can survive in that atmosphere. There is also the organizational fact that once a ball starts rolling, it will gain speed - ie once you question, you will doubt, once you doubt ...

Both the "army" and the gov't lost confidence in him. Hard to quantify or "explain" that ...

It`s what the medics call "multifactorial" when you ask them what causes something.

Without wishing to be pro or con anybody, why do you reckon Haig lasted but French didn`t? French was CinC for just over a year with a few failures but was Haig`s record any better till mid 1918? This is not to necessarily denigrate either man - just to look at their toleration from above and below. Phil B

[Chris_Baker]

A good question, Phil B. I think the answer lies in the fact that both "above" and "below" believed Haig was doing the right things. French lost the "above" early on.

[truthergw]

Sorry Tom, not possible to leave Haig out at this level.

The BEF did not do as well as hoped in 1915. It is possible that Loos was seen as one more defeat in a series of them but this time with very great losses. All of this being laid at French's door. The fact that Haig and French had a public falling out over the handling of the reserves gave the anti French faction a stick to beat him with. Once he was gone, Haig was a ' shoo-in' to replace him. If one reviews French's actions up to his replacement, it is hard to argue against it. I do not know why Haig was not replaced and my guess is that there was no obvious successor who was demonstrably better. I think that he came very close to replacement a couple of times, if Nivelle had triumphed at Chemin des Dames, I think Haig would have gone then and of course , it is possible that he was replaced in a manner of speaking when Foch was made Generalissimo. This is sometimes presented as a slick bit of work by Haig, to prevent his recall and replacement.

[ressmex]

Sorry Tom, not possible to leave Haig out at this level.

The BEF did not do as well as hoped in 1915. It is possible that Loos was seen as one more defeat in a series of them but this time with very great losses. All of this being laid at French's door. The fact that Haig and French had a public falling out over the handling of the reserves gave the anti French faction a stick to beat him with. Once he was gone, Haig was a ' shoo-in' to replace him. If one reviews French's actions up to his replacement, it is hard to argue against it. I do not know why Haig was not replaced and my guess is that there was no obvious successor who was demonstrably better. I think that he came very close to replacement a couple of times, if Nivelle had triumphed at Chemin des Dames, I think Haig would have gone then and of course , it is possible that he was replaced in a manner of speaking when Foch was made Generalissimo. This is sometimes presented as a slick bit of work by Haig, to prevent his recall and replacement.

DON'T BLAME ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tom

[ressmex]

So French made a few enemys and a few mistakes appears to have been fairly unpopular with his peers, so why then is he given CinC UK probably the next most impotant position in the war I imagine responsible for the organising and dispatching of troops and supplies to the other fronts?

TOM

[Chris_Baker]

Because Field Marshals are treated with respect?

[truthergw]

...................so why then is he given CinC UK probably the next most impotant position in the war I imagine responsible for the organising and dispatching of troops and supplies to the other fronts?

TOM

He was appointed by HM Government. It was a political decision taken by the Prime Minister and some of the Cabinet. I should think they took advice from the appropriate Service Chiefs. He was appointed by the same people who replaced him a year or so later. All this is as it should be in a democracy.

[ressmex]

Because Field Marshals are treated with respect?

With respect Chris, to have a subordinate general publicly rowing with a field marshal (respect)

TOM

[Chris_Baker]

I meant by those "above"

[armourersergeant]

To back up Jon on the reputation, if that is correct phrase, of Nick Lloyd. I have listened to him on numerous occasions and can say he is both fair and knowledgable. It is also to his credit that two of his greatest supporters are John Bourne and Gary Sheffield, both arch Haig supporters. Men who would have steered him to use correct method and sources. I believe one of Nick's areas is Arial warfare at Kings.

Incidently both Bourne and Sheffield are willing to see faults in Haig.

regards

Arm

[Desmond7]

Sir Henry Wilson, IIRC, also took the opportunity to 'sink the feet' into French?

Thus he faced a combination of political back stabbing, military vote of no confidence and Royal disapproval?

Having said all that, I do still consider he was past his sell by date as commander.

In terms of the original question then, I think French got the heave-ho because 1. other military commanders, principally Haig reckoned they could do better. 2. in modern day parlance .. sack the manager.

Sub question .. if French had survived in his role, would he have have exhibited the qualities which finally brought victory UNDER Haig. The man (Haig) can be knocked on all sorts of levels but, at the end of the day (to keep the footie bit in) he was in charge of the winning team?

Or would French, with a few changes to the backroom staff, big money transfers have won the Champions League?

Discuss in the manner of (1) Alan Hansen (2) Ian Wright (3) The hugely magnificent and honest almost Godlike manager of the real Pride of North London, Martin Jol.

Des .. responding in an on topic manner in an utterly kind of fashion.

[truthergw]

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

Incidently both Bourne and Sheffield are willing to see faults in Haig.

regards

Arm

I am not in any way comparing myself to these acknowledged experts but I believe that anyone who reads about the war and how it was conducted would like to go back and give Haig and almost all of his subordinate senior commanders a right good kick up the ****. How much of my own exasperation with the repeated blunders is due to hindsight and lack of real knowledge is impossible to say but I regularly have to put the book down and make a cup of tea.

[Chris_Baker]

Tom, do you feel the same when you read about the German, French, Italian, Austrian, Russian etc commanders?

[Jonathan Saunders]

Tom, do you feel the same when you read about the German, French, Italian, Austrian, Russian etc commanders?

Chris,

As a matter of interest do you think it is a case of comparing like for like?

My reading has crossed over British, French, German and Turkish armies, and although predominantly it has concerned the British army as you would expect, my reading leads me to believe there are political and structural factors that need to be considered when looking at the conduct and pressure under which each C-in-C and his senior generals operated.

Jon