The Road to a Revisionist Damascus

[Just Barbara]

This thread is extremely interesting, I still don't like Haig ( sorry boys), but I have learnt a great deal, so you've improved my education if nothing else, and I have to say in passing that if somebody charged me with a fixed bayonet I should CERTAINLY run away.

Barbara

[John Gilinsky]

Your response no kidding reminds me of the scene in the movie Crocidle Dundee when Croc is being mugged by two youths who hold out a knife to scare Croc in handing over his wallet. That's not a knife; now this is a knife! - I wonder if those who were being charged by bayonets felt confidence that THEIR bayonet was far superior to the cold steel of their charging enemy!

John

[Fred van Woerkom]

Corporal Jones of DAD'S ARMY fame was a great believer inthe bayonet: "Threy don't like it up 'em, sir ! "

All the best,

Fred

[Just Barbara]

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

Barbara..

[per ardua per mare per terram]

2) Virtually ignoring the extremely important naval contribution paints a false image of how the war was won - because here lies another architect in the team. Just a quick thought as to what would have happened without the naval campaign soon shows how the BEF would have had a very different war.

salesie, its good to see this acknowlegement of the Naval contribution.

Without the Merchant Marine and the Navy, the BEF wouldn't have had a war - because they would have had to stay in the UK and even if they left wouldn't have been resupplied.

Without British industrial output the men would have been undressed and unarmed. There are a lot of elements to the war that regularly get underplayed.

[Pete1052]

As long as food is issued in tins, bayonets will be required.

Click here, I think Tom has a point.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all - we seem to have strayed off revisionism a bit!

In an early post on this thread, John Reed said:

"History was written 1914-1918, why do people try to rewrite it 90 years on."

With respect, John, I disagree. What was written in 1914-1918 was Current Affairs. And, in any case, where does "revisionism" start? 1920? 1930? Would you study the Napoleonic Wars using only books written by 1815?

History consists (forgive me for being didactic) in studying evidence from the past, not all of which may have been known at the time, applying careful and imparial methods of deduction to that evidence, and reaching conclusions which can be presented, first to a peer group and then to a wider public, with some confidence.

As the years pass, more information about the period becomes available (letters home, archaeological finds etc) which cause revision of what can only ever be a partially completed jigsaw. Sometimes the new evidence casts serious doubt on earlier conclusions.

The best judgement on Haig that I have ever come across was by Churchill, a man who was at best luikewarm towards him. I cannot remember the exact words but he basically said:

"He may have been - indeed he almost certainly was - unequal to the task, but no-one else was perceived as his equal or superior."

Ron

[PhilB]

The best judgement on Haig that I have ever come across was by Churchill, a man who was at best luikewarm towards him. I cannot remember the exact words but he basically said:

"He may have been - indeed he almost certainly was - unequal to the task, but no-one else was perceived as his equal or superior."

Ron

If that`s true, and I suspect it is literally true, it may stand as a criticism of the British top brass as a whole. Why could the French produce a Foch but we couldn`t produce someone equal to the task? The Aussies appear to have succeeded for example.

There is a probably deliberate ambiguity in WSC`s statement. He says "no-one else was perceived as his equal" (he doesn`t say by whom) but he doesn`t say "no-one was his equal".

Stands back for retaliation from Haigists!

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stands back for retaliation from Haigists!

Not from this one - battering my head against a brick wall doesn't appeal. As to Churchill - he made so many contradictory statements that you could find one to support almost any argument, pro or con.

[truthergw]

Foch was as good as sacked for two years during the war. Joffre invented a job for him which kept him on the ration strength and out of the way so that he could be brought back when Nivelle got sacked. Foch was one of the great advocates of spirit over material which led to the massacres of Les Poilus in the Battles of the Frontiers. He was not viewed by the British with any great admiration at the time of the German attacks in 1918. Very slow to send the promised French reserves in more than one battle, he was content to let Haig fall back and let the British absorb the brunt of the German assaults. It might not be too far from the truth to say that he rode to fame on the back of Haig's victories after Haig had suggested him as Generalissimo on the Western front. Foch was inflated in the Allies estimation because he was the French Generalissimo and it suited Lloyd George to praise him as a not too subtle criticism of Haig.

[squirrel]

Tom,

Well said - "in a nutshell" so to speak.

[PhilB]

So was Foch unequal to the task of Generalissimo? His record in post would indicate otherwise?

[AndyHollinger]

A chorus of the Spam song please - substitute the word Haig for Spam.

He was there, he didn't lose, he won. LLG didn't like him. The level of teamwork he did with both French and Americans worked. He was not Lee, nor Gant, nor Sherman or any of the sons of GIII ... He was more a Ligonier or Amhearst. He was loyal to his King and his men withing the parameters of his day.

Now for something completely different:

I'm a historian and I'm okay. I read old books and write tests all day ... (continue on your own, you Pythonics know the tune)

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 12:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So was Foch unequal to the task of Generalissimo? His record in post would indicate otherwise?

You seem to have done some reading on the subject of Foch's record and come to some conclusions on it, Phil. Why don't you set out the case for Foch being equal to the task?

[Steven Broomfield]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why could the French produce a Foch but we couldn`t produce someone equal to the task? The Aussies appear to have succeeded for example.

Oh, come on Phil. If you mean Monash, then for all his achievements, at best he commanded a Corps, never more. Haig was commanding Armies (plural), with all the infrastructure that entailed. I really don't think you can compare Haig and Monash, or even Foch and Monash.

Incidentally, whatever the strengths or weaknesses of Foch, he makes a lovely statue. The one near Victoria Station I pass often and it's a beaut.

[IanA]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a probably deliberate ambiguity in WSC`s statement. He says "no-one else was perceived as his equal" (he doesn`t say by whom) but he doesn`t say "no-one was his equal".

Ere we are, ere we are, ere we are again......

Now, what Earl Haig thought about Churchill after his book 'The World Crisis' when in conversation with General Sir Noel Birch:

"Winston has never understood the difficulties with which we were faced nor realised how much my decisions depended on the state of the French army."

[truthergw]

Winston Churchill. Military genius with Gallipoli and Dieppe to his credit. He expected a division when he took the huff at parliament and got a battalion because his pals pleaded with Haig. He soon got over his fit of pique and went back to home comforts. Good job the rest of the British Army did not follow suit.

[PhilB]

It`s like poking a stick into an anthill!

I`ll use the Haig defence for Foch - he won.

No more gents - it`s too much like hard work. Churchill was wrong. Lloyd George was wrong. Edmonds was wrong. They were all wrong. We know better today.

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It`s like poking a stick into an anthill!

That's why you do it, isn't it Phil? Anyway, on this occasion I fancy you've been diappointed with the measured responses you've got.

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No more gents - it`s too much like hard work.

I fancy too that we'll have occasion to remind you of that promise.

ciao,

GAC

[IanA]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jul 10 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No more gents - it`s too much like hard work. Churchill was wrong. Lloyd George was wrong. Edmonds was wrong. They were all wrong. We know better today.

NOW you've got it!! Hold that thought.

[David Filsell]

A point touched on early in this superby considered topic was the 'learning curve'. Although this has been a constant theme amongst most revisionist writers, its must be understood that the curve was far from a constant one as far as the Brits were concerned. Certainly the skills were learned slowly - and one must not forget the woeful shortage trained of staff officers in 1914 which bedevilled the BEF really until after the Battle of the Somme - by staff officers and senior commanders. At times the new skills once developed were imperfectly applied. But by 1918, following the German Spring Offensives (which in themselves added little new tactically, and emplyed many old tactics like expensive full frontal attacks at times) the Brits had certainly got it together. The 100 days saw the very first use of the all arms attack and employed virtiually all that had been so bitterly learned by the artillery, the aviators, the engineers, the infantry and the staffs of those formations - and all under the overall command of Douglas Haig.

[George Armstrong Custer]

this superby considered topic

I agree - this thread has been one of the most considered and acrimony-free discussions of the topic. I'd be a shame for it to end up reduced to the level of someone poking a stick into an anthill for the hell of it.

The 100 days saw the very first use of the all arms attack and employed virtiually all that had been so bitterly learned by the artillery, the aviators, the engineers, the infantry and the staffs of those formations - and all under the overall command of Douglas Haig.

I agree - and would add that the fact that the British bent but did not break under the weight of the German March offensive is further evidence of lessons learnt and revealed to have been learnt in a cohesion of command and battlefield performance which stemmed and then repulsed the German onslaught.

[John_Hartley]

I fancy too that we'll have occasion to remind you of that promise.

Hold that thought, George.

[John_Hartley]

The 100 days saw the very first use of the all arms attack ........

David

Would you not see Cambrai as "first"? Or, perhaps, only as tactic still under development by Haig and senior commanders?

John

[squirrel]

That they fought the battle at Cambrai without sufficient reserves and suffered the consequences was the lesson learned there IMHO.

Not that they had the reserves to use in the first place.............................