Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 22 January , 2004 Share Posted 22 January , 2004 Hello there! I am Italian and I have started reading and studying the Great War years ago as a personal hobby of mine. Pretty soon I got myself engulfed with rare book, various publications and definitely too many pieces of info which I desperately would like to discuss with any other student or scholar of this virtually endless subject. In particular, I would very much like to know the current and the past British people point of view and opinion about the B.E.F. C-in-C Gen., Sir Douglas Haig. Personally I am still undecided about wether to label him as one more "Donkey" or somehow give him all the credit that history seems to have neglected. Generally speaking, I would very much like to discuss in details any particular issue or aspect of the Great War, especially from the British and French point of view. Thank you for your interest! I look forward to read your comments and questions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 22 January , 2004 Share Posted 22 January , 2004 Alessandro Welcome to the forum. As you have recognised, Douglas Haig is a contraversial figure in WW1 British military history. He has been discussed many times on this forum and no doubt will continue to be so. You will be not be suprised, I'm sure, if you get a wide variety of views. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 23 January , 2004 Share Posted 23 January , 2004 Allesandro, Firstly welcome. Secondly, put ya helmet on and get in ya trench. Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbufkle Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 I saw an interesting show about Hiag last summer. Although I personally believe he was simply a poor leader... this show tried to paint him as a deeply religious man who believed that the greatest honour in the face of god was dying in combat. (& thus getting you a free pass through the pearly gates) After the show I couldnt help but laugh... it was really something I have never heard before or since. As a matter of fact I would like to know if anyone else has seen this little bit of propaganda I watched on 'The History Channel' in Canadaq around early August. I know most of the shows on this channel to do with the Great War are British in origin. (Not too many US shows on WW1!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 It is reported that Haig became much more devout after he became in C-in-C and I think even Terraine mentions Haig completely believed his destiny had been ordained by God and that was to win the war. I think he appointed a young Scottish Presbyterian minister whose service he had attended at some point in 1915, as his particular chaplain. I have my own views on this. Allesandro - welcome to the Forum but I am afraid you will find other users loathe to discuss Haig openly due to the sometimes passionate and far ranging views he elicits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Burgoyne Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 Hi Alessandro Welcome to the forum. I have aways held the view, evan when I was a kid and had not read any pro or anty Haig views, that if Haig was such a Donkey, then how come it was his Army that played the major roll in the last year of the war. Ok people will say it was the curage of the oridinary British Soldiers that saw the Army through but curage along will never see an Army through 4 and 1/2 years of bloody hell against an Army who were very skillful in the Art of War themselfs. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 First of all, HELLO Everybody and many thanks for populating this topic discussion area. Second, I'd like to start with Annette's acute observation which I cannot refrain myself from agreeing with 100%! D.H., as Terraine for example correctly narrates, was given the quite difficult and twofold role of a would-be national hero and, if else had failed, of the National scapegoat. In spite of the relatively "happy" and yet undecisive time Sir John French enjoyed at the very beginning of the show, Haig was the one and only C-in-C to impact with the brunt of of whole burden of conducting a war effort.... for another Country, namely France. What I really cannot stand myself, being obviously pro-british, is the fact that people like Joffre, Foch and Nivelle have always found much better acceptance from the English Parliament (chekc what Lloyd George was able to mischievously plan along with Nivelle's madness, without ever having the balls - pardon my french - to substitute Haig), rather than its own soldiers and leaders. I guess that Douglas Haig was eventually "saved" by the "bell" of victory, otherwise people may have literally lapidated him as one of the worst, brainless person of history. But, as I mentioned before, what about a Prime Minister leaguing with the French reather than checking his people first?!?! What about an entire German army in full retreat to the Hindenburg Line in order to avoid, YES AVOID, the ordeal and the terrible losses of another SOMME?!?!?! For what concerns this odd idea of Haig being a half-priest of war or a quasi-mystical being so similar to an avatar I have strong doubts. It seems to me much more of a cheap research's boasting slogan, rather than an ascertained and proved fact. Yes, everybody was quite religious at that time, but do not forget that even chaplains were sometimes required to brace a weapon and do their deeds along with the normal soldiers, therefore I fail to see any strong connection or bond between D.H. and any allegedly mystical or spiritual legacy. Did any of you girls and guys ever visited Haig's final resting place in Bemersyde? Does anyone of you know what's his epitaph, if there's any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 Oh, another thing, this time a little bit more "amusing" and maybe trivial: does anyone of you know a good CD collection or recording (possibly available on the web) with WWI era's song like "There's a long long trail", "Keep the home fires burning", "The roses of picardy", "Pack up your trouble", etc.? If anybody is interested I have this CD I got some time ago from the Imperial War Museum in London which is quite all right, but still lots of song are missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 Oh, another thing, this time a little bit more "amusing" and maybe trivial: does anyone of you know a good CD collection or recording (possibly available on the web) with WWI era's song like "There's a long long trail", "Keep the home fires burning", "The roses of picardy", "Pack up your trouble", etc.? If anybody is interested I have this CD I got some time ago from the Imperial War Museum in London which is quite all right, but still lots of song are missing. There are 3 volumes of WW1 songs and recital/speech/sketch recordings entitled: 'Oh! It's a lovely War'. 2 volumes are double CDs and one a single CD. Most are recordings from 1912-1920. So far as I know all are from the Empire, mainly UK & Oz. Which songs are you missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 Ciao Burlington! Thank you for your message! Basically I would like to get some brand new recordings, because the one I have are not exactly that good. The collection you mentioned sounds promising and interesting enough - where did you get it? Was it some online shopping? If so, please be so kind to give me some directions. Thanks you very much indeed!!!!! All the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burlington Posted 26 January , 2004 Share Posted 26 January , 2004 Ciao Burlington! Thank you for your message! Basically I would like to get some brand new recordings, because the one I have are not exactly that good. The collection you mentioned sounds promising and interesting enough - where did you get it? Was it some online shopping? If so, please be so kind to give me some directions. Thanks you very much indeed!!!!! All the best! I bought these CDs in France and Belgium BUT they are UK published. The following is from http://www.amazon.co.uk Oh It's a Lovely War: Songs and Sketches of the Great War 1914-1918 -- Various Artists (Audio CD - CD41 - 27 May, 2002) Our Price: £9.99 Oh It's a Lovely War Vol.2 -- Various Artists (Audio CD - CD41 - 4 February, 2002) Our Price: £12.99 Oh It's a Lovely War Vol.3 -- Various Artists (Audio CD - CD41 - 10 February, 2003) Our Price: £12.99 Just type in the title, 'Oh! It's a lovely war' in the search box. They are well worth getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 27 January , 2004 Share Posted 27 January , 2004 Thank you very much Burlington! I took your advice and I just placed my order for the three CDs! I will let you know how I like them although I am pretty sure that's what I was looking for! By the way, and what I am going to say is for everybody, do you have any specific idea about why did Lloyd George dislike so much Douglas Haig, apart from alleged personal incompatibilities? I am almost finished reading the actual "plot", which resembles a real conspiracy, which took part between L.G. and the French Government during the months previous to the Nivelle's offensive (as researched by John Terraine), and I must say I am quite astonished to find out about the mischievous attitude of the British P.M. at that time. Any idea or deeper explanation available? Thank you!!!!! By the way, if you like to buy some good, old WWI book, try this website http://www.denismcd.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 27 January , 2004 Share Posted 27 January , 2004 do any of youyou have any specific idea about why did Lloyd George dislike so much Douglas Haig, apart from alleged personal incompatibilities? I am almost finished reading the actual "plot", which resembles a real conspiracy, which took part between L.G. and the French Government during the months previous to the Nivelle's offensive (as researched by John Terraine), and I must say I am quite astonished to find out about the mischievous attitude of the British P.M. at that time. Any idea or deeper explanation available? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 27 January , 2004 Share Posted 27 January , 2004 I undersstood when L-G first replaced Assquith, relations between him and his C-in-C were reasonably cordial and despite Haig's open contempt for politicians he had arranged for L-G to see his two serving sons when L-G visited the Front in early 1916. However subsequent to this kind act Haig made some errors of judgement including a press interview where he was alleged to give some bullish comments about how the British would force a break-through. At this stage Britain in terms of men, equipment and line held, was still the junior party and L-G's consideration was to unify the Allies under French command, which equally antagonised Haig in the same way Haig's press interview had antagonised L-G. Before any damage between them could be limited or rectified, there was the Somme, and Haig lost all of L-G's trust as Commander-in-Chief. Once their relationship was on a downward keel then Haig's dour personality and difficulty in communicating with others probably meant his relationship with L-G would never recover. I am sure if I have been inaccurate in any way, those with a deeper understanding of this subject will correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 28 January , 2004 Share Posted 28 January , 2004 One thing should always be remembered is that - at least in democratic societies, but also in the German state - there is a natural and built-in antagonism between civilian political leaders and the soldier servants of the state. There is evidence of this in every conflict I have studied. In the British system, the antagonism existed ever since the passing of George II. Soldiers were loyal to the Crown and as the Crown was increasingly represented by "his/her" ministers the gulf widened. LG was, probably, one of the first of the modern politicians who was loyal only to the electorate and the concept of winning/keeping the electorate in his favor. While at the bottom, there is never a view of this divide that prevades the concept of loyalty - at the top, there certainly is. Marlborough got past this using his wife and personal charm. Can you imagine of what Ligonier thought of his civilian masters? Lee's success at "handling" Davis is renown, there is still a lot of controversy and bad history about Westmorland and his DOD masters ... the list goes on ... Haig was, by all accounts, a "simple soldier" but it's more than that. Nobody reaches that level without being a politician and "making deals with the devil" in terms of becoming embroiled in complex and almost byzantine levels of intrigue and personality conflicts and alliances. A great commander needs a clear view of victory and purpose - it's never that clear and the civilian gov't sees a lot more things a lot differently simply by definition. No one has ever mentioned this but Haig was a man, by all accounts, loyal to his wife where as LG was not. Haig had a lot of blood on his hands whereas LG always wore gloves - in the figurative sense - that alone would cause issues to arise. One must remember that WWI was the birth of the Popular Democracy in the UK at a whole new level ... and LG was it's first child. Haig grew up in a Victorian sense of the Crown - this conflict and level of respect for the Crown would be enough to set them apart. If one looks at the initial Rosebury / CB Liberal Gov't and Haldane's entry into the WO, one can see the beginning here of conflict between the civilian and military in the modern sense. Haldane was "not exactly" a military type - a "bachelor" who smoked his cigars on the tip of small gold forks, etc. Not that Kitchner didn't have alternative lifestyle leanings ... but Haldane was a politician and toadied the soldiers into moving forward ... LG, taking power through the military logisitics as he did ... saw himself as their "savior" and the "old guard" as being the problem, etc. Conflict, built in, took it's way. All this is to say, step back from the immediate and look at the process and process. There is always conflict between the civilian leader and their leading soldier. Only Pershing had the full confidence of his leader and that was easier because it was shorter and didn't have any disasters to live through. Notice, though, Pershing was junior and promoted as Wilson's man. The same is true of Eisenhower ... MacArther was shorted, in some respects, because he was old school and not one of Roosevelt's guys ... and in the end, the shopkeeper from Missouri sacked him ... My advice is not to dwell on this too much because it was part of the deal. Haig was saved by the bell of Victory. Hindenburg and Luddendorf escaped their legacy of defeat through the "Stabbed in the back myth" and the fact both displayed an amazing cowardice during the final months of the war by literally throwing the ball back to the civilians and saying, we can't win, salvage what you can and when they couldn't, blaming them. Net: Conflict between the two was normal and usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy taylor Posted 29 January , 2004 Share Posted 29 January , 2004 Alessandro et al, One question you should ask yourself is: If not Haig, then who else in his place ? Also remember that the scale of the conflict and the prevailing communications technology, meant that exercising command in WW1 was probably more difficult than at any other time before or since. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Birch Posted 29 January , 2004 Share Posted 29 January , 2004 Haig was a Soldier, and C-in-C BEF. Lloyd George was a politician and Prime Minister. I think the actual individuals are probably irrelevant, any strong PM at the time would have been in conflict with any strong C-in-C. The two jobs were so different. The only thing they had in common was a desire for Victory. The C-in C was prepared to deliver, but knew that given the strength and quality of the German Army, Victory could ONLY come at a cost. The PM wanted Victory at a low cost, which was impossible. No solution. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alessandro Milan Posted 31 January , 2004 Share Posted 31 January , 2004 Hello there everybody! Sorry to get back to you so late, but I had a biiig problam with my adsl Internet access here in Milan. First of all many many thanks for the explanation to my recent question, from Andy, Signals, Guy and Tim. Thanks a real lot guys! By the way Andy where did you take that picture of yours? Was it at Messines? Or is it the Thiepval memorial? Now a question for EVERYBODY: I am planning a trip to the Somme, Ypres, Messines, etc. (hopefully including Verdun as well) for summer 2004: I found some web sites of Battefield Tour Operators but I'd like to know your comments and reccomendations if any of you has already taken such tour. I was thinking about mid-august or September 2004, anybody actually organizing the same thing? With a bit of planning and luck who knows, we could be part of the same tour! All the best to everybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annette Burgoyne Posted 1 February , 2004 Share Posted 1 February , 2004 Hi Alessandro It may be best to make your last post in 'I'm going to the Battlefields' section because not everyone reads every post (there is too many ). People going to the battlefield may not look at this tread. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Alexander Posted 1 February , 2004 Share Posted 1 February , 2004 One question you should ask yourself is: If not Haig, then who else in his place ? Haig,as has been indicated, was saved by the bell of victory. Lloyd-George was actively considering replacement, and had, according to some, thought Sir Arthur Currie, Canadian Corps commander was a suitable candidate. Image, a colonial, part-time militia solider, leading the Imperial Forces!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 1 February , 2004 Share Posted 1 February , 2004 By the way Andy where did you take that picture of yours? That picture was taken by our friend and guide, Tom Morgan at the Minden Gate during our visit to Ypres & Vimy Ridge ... For SOME of the photos we took during this whirlwind tour, see Our 2001 Vacation There are several sections on the battlefield trips ... But here is the full picture from which the detail was taken: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 Andy where is the exhortation carved in stone? I have been to Ieper a good bit w/o seeing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 Andy where is the exhortation carved in stone? I have been to Ieper a good bit w/o seeing that. If you're refering to: It's on the right (as you face it) to the main entrance to the British Museum. It's their memorial to the staffers who died in WWI. Almost lost, it, to me, is one of the most touching and real concepts of Rememberance. Much like this one in Hyde Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SARowl Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 I have read most of the current published books about Haig and I have yet to form a conclusive opinion about him. He was a very ambitious, educated (Oxford?), energetic and hardworking Cavalry Officer. His support for the Staff College was ahead of his time, but he was essentially a 19th century General. Remember he reintroduced the lance back into Cavalry Units after it had been deemed obselete in the Boer War. Whilst CinC of I Corps he unashamedly schemed against General French to get Command of the BEF. His great success of 1915 was the battle of Neuve Chappell. Surprise and a whirlwind artillery barrage broke a weak German line, timing and luck was against him and the gap wasn't exploited. I believe his plan for the Somme was Neuve Chappell on a grand scale, unfortunately the Germans had learnt their lessons. I can almost forgive Haig for the debacle on the Somme, he was fighting a 20th Century war with 19th century tatics and no other Allied or German General was fighting it any differently. I cannot forgive him for 3rd Ypres, a repeat of the Somme in deep mud. Did he learn his lessons in time for 1918 and the advance to victory? Or, was he just a bit player whilst the Germans collapsed? Lloyd-George didn't trust him after the Somme - although he foolishly trusted the silver-tongued Nivelle - and actively kept troops in the Britain and safely away from Haig. Time seems to have mellowed Haig's reputation, but he died with much wasted blood on his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 There is much dispute about Haig but I recall no one saying French should have been left in charge. 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