Douglas Haig: Educated Soldier or Butcher?

[Guest Alessandro Milan]

Well, first of all thank you very much for your input Gutrie, although I would like to discuss it a bit further. Haig was the ideal scapeagoat for every misfortune of the British Army on the Western Front. In spite of what many contemporary authors says (authors who delve into revisionism, which is nothing more than anti-history with the blame game thrown in), D.H. was very keen to find new weapons and tactics, along with questioning his subalterns' military conduct of the war with Socrates-like approach (many straightforward and direct questions about every single details of planning attacks, with final conclusions and directions based only on ascertained facts and nothing more). This quite unusual approach to war games came, if nothing else, as real life-saver in terms of canceling further and useless manslaughter which Gough and even Plumer would have thrown themselves into headlong. Then, if you read what Ludendorf had to say right after the Somme and especially after the many phases of the "Passchendaele" campaign, you may be surprised: the Boche could not get themselves to grip with everlasting and incredibly wearing attacks coming from no man's land, which gradually, but unstoppably forced them to keep on withdrawing.

Lloyd George was seeking easier fame and glory, at an alleged lesser cost, on the Italian front and possibly even somewhere else, and I can understand him from the political point of view (thank you guys for the comprehensive and details explanations given me so far), but what I cannot stand is the fact that he "danced with the devil" in another Country (namely, France), quickly and fully joining the cause of the Gallic-like warlord Nivelle. Why not conspirating with Plumer, Allenby or even Gough themselves, rather than crossing the Channel and embracing, basically, another Country mischevousness?!?! Petain, after Nivelle, did not much to prove France still a worthy partner, after the 1917 series of crisis.

Bottm line: D.H. was somehow forced to die with much blood on his hands just as much as Hindenburg and Ludendorf were forced to do (with the difference of dying in total disgrace, trying to put the blame on the Politician, pretending to have been stabbed in the back on the verge of final victory - !!!!).

[Guest Alessandro Milan]

Did ANYBODY say to leave Sir John French in charge of the B.E.F.?!?!?! Come on guys, the man did not have enough "b....s" since the very beginning!!! :-)

[Andrew Hesketh]

Blimey, I'm entering a possible barrage here......

In simple terms, and by modern standards, few WWI Commanders of ANY nation look competent. But history must be judged in the context of the period and at that time Haig was chosen as the best man to replace French and, despite Lloyd George's desire to remove him, nobody better could be found - so he couldn't have been that bad could he?

There's been so much written about Haig and that much maligned group of Great War Generals, that anything I suggest here would be rather pointless. However I'll offer one personal opinion: if Haig had been a better self-publicist, a man with charisma, a man with the 'common touch', rather than an aloof, distant and difficult figure, our opinion of him would probably be very different. (And, of course, unlike his adversary Lloyd George, Haig never produced that killer autobiography!)

Back to the funk hole.....

[Guest Alessandro Milan]

A very silly question now: some Canadian friend of mine once told me the the Flanders' poppy is the symbol of the WWI not only becaused there were plenty on the battlefield in Spring, but also because soldiers were use to either smoke them or eat them in order to "drug" themselves with the seed of these flowers. Is that true?!?

[Guest Alessandro Milan]

Hello again EVERYBODY!

I am seeking your kind help now: can anybody suggest me a good, simple book which explains the basics of the British Army / BEF organization, assigning its key players in the correct time and rank - slots? I mean, something like a "BEF for Dummies"; since I am Italian and thus not particularly familiar with foreign political and military system, especially during the 1914-1918 period, I would very much benefit from a simple, possibile schematic, publication to teach me, for example, the positioning of the I.G.S. in respect to the War Cabinet, how many G.S. there were and how many British Armies, with their respective key players mentioned, etc.

I must confess that I often get confused between Corps, Armies, GHQ, Intelligence Branch, Liasons Officer roles, etc.

Please advise, just pretending I am a 10 years old schoolboy - the simpler and dummier book, the better for me! Many many thanks!

[Guest Hussar]

Hi All,

Had to jump in on this one.

Having recently read LG's Memoirs, his chapter on Haig is very interesting reading.

Firstly, he states that he had no personal or political problem with either Haig or Robertson. He didn't know, or care what DH's politics were and "...during my many visits to his HQ's in France, he received me with the greatest courtesy and always made me feel a welcome guest."

One of the the more pertinant 'confessions' though is his bald statement that "..I judged them purely as instruments for achieving victory."

He indicates that, in his opinion, the only reason their was a problem between them was that Haig didn't like his interference in military matters.

He also gives a strange opinion in that he, on the one hand admits Haig was the only man for the job and that he was above average in intelligence and industry but then states that he thought he was " intellectually and temperamentally unequal to the task..." but later opines that his main fault was a lack of 'personal magnetism' !

Then, he states that the magnitude of the task was beyond someone of Haigs ability but swiftly follows up by saying that "..no British General was ever given so gigantic an undertaking."

At the end of the day IMHO Haig did the best he could in an unenviable situation and there is a lot more to the story than we will ever know.

Think of DH's continued slating about the body count and continuance of the Somme offensive and compare it to the information that the Government had, basically, told him he could carry on provided the casualty figures didn't exceed 500,000..!

[Guest Alessandro Milan]

Thank you very much for your message Hussar, very straightforward and very comprehensive in term of what should be the definitive reading, along with Terraine's "Educated Soldier". The PM's War Memories is very well counterbalanced and even attacked in all his boldness and reckless politic wargames, by Terraine who acts as Douglas Haig's sole defender.

Basically, the more I read about Lloyd George, the more I think he was your ordinary, typical politician jerk. Quite undecided, double faced, always seeking for ways to backstab enemies and cut the best deal for himself with which to receive the accolade of the people back at home.

I mean, how could you possibly pretend to win the war by reducing the offensive/defensive strenght of the army, while, after trying to force the Supreme War Council's decisions on Douglas Haig, all the Dominions' troops refused to comply to this drastic and dangerous reduction of manpower?!? No wonder it was the Anzacs and the Canadians who eventually got to the final goals and objectives, leaving the real BEF licking its wounds in the backstage!

D.H. was the right general at the right time in the right place. Too bad that the more we get ourselves entagled in this somehow fascinating readings, we tend to forget that, good general or bad general, everybody was playing tin soldiers with millions of real human beings drowning in the mud!