British Butchers and Bunglers of WWI

[Dikke Bertha]

............. My limited understanding for the petering out of the German offensives of 1918 is the often quoted swarms of under nourished German troops falling on Allied food dumps rather than pressing attacks, the relatively poor quality troops available to Luddendorf in 1918, growing socialism and anti-war sentiments taking root among the ranks and potential reinforcements, powerful Allied counter-attacks - not least the totally unexpected and rapid support from the French, the availability of far more American troops than had been estimated, together with 4 years of warfare and successful Allied blockade that had exhausted German natural resources and their ability to produce munitions in sufficient quantities etc.

"Unexpected and rapid support from the French" is not a term which springs to mind if you read "The German Offensive 1918" by Martin Kitchen.

[Jonathan Saunders]

"Unexpected and rapid support from the French" is not a term which springs to mind if you read "The German Offensive 1918" by Martin Kitchen.

Dont know as I havent read it but my understanding was that Luddendorf obviously made the main thrust against the British with some token faints against the French on the basis the French wouldnt move until such time as they were convinced the Germans were not going to attack their part of the Line. What has stuck in my memory (so I have read it somewhere) is that the French moved to support their Allies much quicker than Luddendorf had anticipated. I am more than happy to be corrected if you would like to elaborate on details.

[Dikke Bertha]

It has been a while since I read the book I referred to and indeed there is a post on this forum on it. The book is called The German Offensive of 1918 by Martin Kitchen. It is primarily taken from the German standpoint and is very blunt about the conduct of the BEF leaders particularly in the opening stages of the first offensive.

Although not an easy book to read it is very interesting and worth struggling through. I will read it again some day.

Have a look at the post on this forum under Book Reviews.

[Jonathan Saunders]

It has been a while since I read the book I referred to and indeed there is a post on this forum on it. The book is called The German Offensive of 1918 by Martin Kitchen. It is primarily taken from the German standpoint and is very blunt about the conduct of the BEF leaders particularly in the opening stages of the first offensive.

Although not an easy book to read it is very interesting and worth struggling through. I will read it again some day.

Have a look at the post on this forum under Book Reviews.

I just took a look at the review and I note that some of Kitchen's views conflict with other historians so I feel a little better in saying I read that te French responded quicker than Luddendorf had anticipated

I have to say the book sounds just the type of book I would enjoy reading and to get back on thread, it obviously contains sentiments that Laffin would have agreed with - none of this pandying to the Haig-revisionsists

[Take on me]

I have to say the book sounds just the type of book I would enjoy reading and to get back on thread, it obviously contains sentiments that Laffin would have agreed with - none of this pandying to the Haig-revisionsists

Beacause, after all, Haig did lose the war

Jon

[Muerrisch]

and he was in charge of the 100 day retreat to defeat in 1918, which ended with the allies sueing for peace at Compiegne.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Beacause, after all, Haig did lose the war

Jon

I wondered who would be first to bite.

As has been discussed on here before - this depends on your point of view.

I am more of the opinion that as hard as he tried, Haig narrowly avoided losing a war it was practically impossible for Britain to lose after 1914. That is not to say I dont think Haig was a "good" soldier - would have made an excellent CIGS in 1914 - but for me, not a battlefield commander, nor a C-in-C Western Front.

Someone said somewhere on this thread about Laffin over-labouring points and detracting from his argument - the same, IMHO, can be said of those that have over-laboured their defence of Haig and refused to see what I regard as Haig's obvious faults.

[Alan Lines]

and he was in charge of the 100 day retreat to defeat in 1918, which ended with the allies sueing for peace at Compiegne.

Yes, the man who so readily, criticised the running of the Battle of Loos and went on to lead the way in such stunning victories as the Battles of the Somme 1/7/16, "Bapaume for tea" and 3rd Ypres, "The Belgian coast for supper." Mr Laffin my labour the point but there is enough in the book (and elsewhere) to prove beyond question that Haig was a B & B of the first order.

[Muerrisch]

Generals are there to win wars, not necessarily all battles, as some battles are unwinnable.

My jury is out on Haig, but it has delivered its verdict on Laffin, believe me. No Laffin matter.

[Take on me]

I wondered who would be first to bite.

As has been discussed on here before - this depends on your point of view.

I am more of the opinion that as hard as he tried, Haig narrowly avoided losing a war it was practically impossible for Britain to lose after 1914. That is not to say I dont think Haig was a "good" soldier - would have made an excellent CIGS in 1914 - but for me, not a battlefield commander, nor a C-in-C Western Front.

Someone said somewhere on this thread about Laffin over-labouring points and detracting from his argument - the same, IMHO, can be said of those that have over-laboured their defence of Haig and refused to see what I regard as Haig's obvious faults.

Haig did have obvious faults, too much optimism and a failure to appreciate when causes were lost. However he got the troops to where they were needed and fought battles of attrition which helped to wear the German army down, he allowed his forces to develop into a technologically very sophisticated army, he supported the French in their hours of need in 1916-7 and he was the driving force behind the victories of the Hundred Days. However I really don't know if I can be bothered to go through another protracted argument on the subject, I have made my views on Haig pretty clear elsewhere.

Regards,

Jon

[Dikke Bertha]

So I gather then that there are no defenders of Laffin's book - said he trying to keep on topic and avoid another Haig bashing frenzy.

I have to say that for all its faults I read the book to the last page although it will not be on my list to read again. There are very few on that list anyway.

[Jonathan Saunders]

So I gather then that there are no defenders of Laffin's book - said he trying to keep on topic and avoid another Haig bashing frenzy.

Not quite! I think Laffin had a good point to make in some instances and I think Hunter-Bunter, Haking and Stopford have been cited as examples of B & B.

[Guest poptoc]

So I gather then that there are no defenders of Laffin's book -

Dickie et Al

There would be lots of defenders of Laffin AND his Book.

Co-incidently today is the Anniversary of the Battle for Broodseinde Ridge, acknowledged by Ludendorf as a Black Day, just like 8/8/1918. That battle was the last component of 3rd Ypres which may be considered as a realistic battle. To pursue the campaign any further must qualify Haig for the title bestowed upon him by Laffin.

The reports of western front campaigns had been censored and spin doctored before reaching the Antipodes. People whose fathers and sons were being sacrificed were told it was in a noble cause, and it was left to Laffin and his successors to tell the true story.

Around Poperinge and Ypres the true story is really etched in stone, on the blockhouses at Tyne Cot, in the memorial panels there, at the Meinen Gate and at Villers Brettoneux where the 1918 German advance DID peter out at the hands of the AIF. Despite the assertion on the memorial alongside Hill 60 that the Enemy was defeated by the forces under the King of Belgium, there are not many Belgian names on the aforementioned Memorial Panels, nor on the thousands of headstones at Tyne Cot, Lijssenthoek or Adelaide cemetery Villers-rettoneux.

Were it not for Laffin, there would many people such as yourself who can calmly walk the area where the Australians achieved so much and be amused by the rantings of of a true gentleman and scholar who attempted to tell the his countrymen of their true sacrifice and achievements

Johnny W.

OH YEAH!!??

LET'S SEE A PHOTO OF YOU IN POPERIGHE WITH TODAY'S PAPER 'POPTOC', OR SHALL WE CALL YOU NOUBLIONS, OR...PAT!!

Edited 4 October , 2006 by Kate Wills

[Take on me]

Co-incidently today is the Anniversary of the Battle for Broodseinde Ridge, acknowledged by Ludendorf as a Black Day, just like 8/8/1918. That battle was the last component of 3rd Ypres which may be considered as a realistic battle. To pursue the campaign any further must qualify Haig for the title bestowed upon him by Laffin.

Around Poperinge and Ypres the true story is really etched in stone, on the blockhouses at Tyne Cot, in the memorial panels there, at the Meinen Gate and at Villers Brettoneux where the 1918 German advance DID peter out at the hands of the AIF. Despite the assertion on the memorial alongside Hill 60 that the Enemy was defeated by the forces under the King of Belgium, there are not many Belgian names on the aforementioned Memorial Panels, nor on the thousands of headstones at Tyne Cot, Lijssenthoek or Adelaide cemetery Villers-Brettoneux.

Were it not for Laffin, there would many people such as yourself who can calmly walk the area where the Australians achieved so much and be amused by the rantings of of a true gentleman and scholar who attempted to tell the his countrymen of their true sacrifice and achievements

Seeing as Ludendorff considered Broodseinde a 'black day' surely it was proper for Haig to continue fighting. Only by inflicting numerous Black Days could the war be won. Haig certainly made many mistakes, but he was not completely and thoroughly evil in the way that Laffin makes him out to be, indeed he did rather a lot which helped the Allies during the war. The simple fact of the matter was that for Belgium and parts of France to be liberated the German Army had to be defeated. This did happen.

The problem is that as gentlemanly as Laffin may be his book is a traversty of scholarship and has probably done more to harm his argument than to help it. His arguments are contradictory and his analysis is utterly one sided. The book fails to take into account the basic problems of fighting a ww1 era war such as a lack of adequate communications etc. Indeed if one reads Laffin's book it is almost impossible to conclude that the Allies won.

Jon

[Kate Wills]

Friends,

Please excuse the unwelcome intrusions into this thread. The problem is that certain people derive vicarious pleasure from trolling, as above. The easy option would be to delete his comments and lock the thread, but this would be a discourtesy to everyone else. One person is NOT going to rock the boat for the rest of us.

This person has been barred on any number of occassions, and one has to admire his tenacity in seeking out addresses which have not already been blocked.

Now, back to subject...

[PBI]

sorry if i sound thick Kate or if i have missed something,what is trolling ?,and if said person has been barred how can they get back on the site

[Guest forest]

Hi kkkkkkkKatie

love from pop

[Guest forest]

Hi kkkkkkkKatie

love from pop

[Kate Wills]

PBI

A troller is one who serially resorts to the type of infantile behaviour as demonstrated by forest (aka Pat, poptoc etc) as above. It is usually done to draw attention to him/herself, and to stir trouble.

I am now moving this thread (temporarily I hope) to Skindles, which has limited access. My apologies to those members who will be unable to read or join in the meantime.

[PBI]

Ok Kate,understood...i see what you mean.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Seeing as Ludendorff considered Broodseinde a 'black day' surely it was proper for Haig to continue fighting. Only by inflicting numerous Black Days could the war be won.

Just concentrating on these two points:

1) surely it would only be worth continuing this battle of attrition only if you were inflicting the most numerically possible casualties on your enemy for the least possible casualties to your own army?

2) the war, IMHO, was already being won through a much more successful form of attrition, that of blockade and the crumbling of the internal German infrastructure.

[Muerrisch]

Well done moderator.