70 replies to this topic

[Staffsyeoman]

Much as I am not a Haig fan, I agree with Steve.  He was one of the best trainers of the Army pre-war. I feel an urge to write a counter-balance to this equally skewed view of Lloyd George, but best unsaid.

And Broomers, your mailbox is full  -was trying to send a message off-Forum.

[David Filsell]

My own fairly detailed study of Haig's performance on the 30th October (as well as the better known 31st) shows his performance to have been extremely good.

[Crunchy]

Steven Broomfield, on 03 August 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I've only just read this.

What an extremely unpleasant and un-necessary post.

Agreed Broomers, but it is typical of those with a closed mind and who, for some reason, believe Haig was directly responsible for every British death on the Western Front. One has to wonder how Steenie would have coped had he been CinC of the BEF; not very well I would think.

The whole controversy on Haig centers around the casualties the BEF suffered, with no recognition that the German Army, one of the best In the world, played a major part in causing that terrible death roll, or that every other army in the Great War suffered enormous casualties in the first of the industrial wars where weaponry had far outpaced the means of overcoming them.  

It seems some people believe a major war can be won with minimal casualties; what Brian Holden Reid calls the "Vietnam Syndrome". A view he suggests is one in which people believe the main object in war is to minimize casualties, rather than win it. As a former soldier I am bemused at those who have never served in the services or fought in a war believe they are competent to pass judgement on those who have. Whether we like it or not, major industrial wars involve huge casualties on both sides, and to blame the generals shows an abysmal, or at best shallow, understanding of what is involved. To go to war with the aim of minimizing casualties is a false strategy with little hope of victory, and a waste of soldiers' lives.

Haig may not have been the perfect general, but he shouldered the awful responsibility of having to fight against one of the best armies in the world holding a very strong defensive system, on a front that had no flanks to turn, against the dreadful lethality of modern weapons, and yet made a major contribution to a victory that many Brits seem to ignore.  He does not deserve the opprobrium heaped upon him by such ignorant, biased and dishonest authors such as Alan Clark and Denis Winter, who seemed more concerned with making a name for themselves than writing sound history.

Fortunately, more erudite and balanced works from Reid, Harris, Sheffield  and others - including GAC - have redressed the balance based on sound research and an understanding of the issues confronting Haig, and have put paid to the views of Clark,Winters and Steenie.

Cheers
Chris

[PJA]

Crunchy, on 19 August 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

  He does not deserve the opprobrium heaped upon him

And yet he got it, in spades.

In historiographical terms, who was,or were,  the principal culprit, or culprits ?

Lloyd George, Churchill, Liddell Hart, Alan Clarke, A.J. P. Taylor, Joan Littlewood ?

Haig went on the record -  at about the same time that he assumed the role of C.i.C -  as countenancing the decimation of the nation's manhood in three years of warfare. An uncannily accurate prediction. I am surprised that this startling comment of his has not been mentioned more often. It could be grist to the mill for those who seek to depict him as callous; it is also testimony to his realistic assessment of the nature of the conflict that he was required to deal with.

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

Crunchy, on 19 August 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Fortunately, more erudite and balanced works from Reid, Harris, Sheffield  and others - including GAC - have redressed the balance based on sound research and an understanding of the issues confronting Haig, and have put paid to the views of Clark,Winters and Steenie.

Cheers
Chris

Unfortunately, Chris, this is not always so. For example, the last time I looked at another forum dealing with the GW (last Friday, to be precise) a post had been placed by a regular troll which was one of the most unpleasant and ignorant outbursts I have ever seen. Not only had it not been moderated on that forum (it may have been now - I can't be fagged to look), but it obviosuly reflects the opinion of someone who claims to have an interest in the subject. Indeed, it made Steenie looks positively enlightened.

Some doors cannot be opened, it seems, and some minds will remain equally closed.

[Jim Smithson]

Unfortunately Steven, to understand the arguments which place Haig in a much better light than that put forward by the likes of Clarke and Winter, one has to have a reasonable level of both knowledge of the war and intellect.  There is a massive public out there without the knowledge and it is very easy to persuade them that a leader whose armies have massive casualties is therefore a butcher.  There are also those who have some, or indeed a great deal of, knowledge but unfortunately not the intellect to assimulate the information properly and are swayed by simplistic arguments.

By the way - as George and others know, I am a critic of Haig; however, I know where to lay my criticisms and to many of them the man would probably, in hindsight, have agreed.  My God, in a position such as his I would challenge anyone to be perfect.

Jim

[PJA]

How far, though, Jim, do you think the opprobrium heaped on Haig is attributable to something besides the unique scale ( in British experience) of the casualties ?

The "distracted multitude" associate him with something  viewed with an abhorrent fascination : the maintenance of a class system which is depicted as socially unjust and innately inhumane.  In the 1960s, with their anti establishment influences - which coincided with the fiftieth anniversary of the Great War years - Haig was a caricatured target, perhaps more on account of his background and social conservatism than the two million or so casualties that the British army in F&F suffered under his overall command.

Phil (PJA)

[David Filsell]

Iy does have some merit - not least in being almost total inaccurate
Thus providing a lesson to us all, a d keeping George in bed for a good rest.

[Crunchy]

Heartily agree with your last post Phil (PJA). As to your question regarding the culprits,  I think all of them and a gullible public.

Having read a fair bit of Liddell-Hart in my younger days, recent historiography and research shows he was not averse to twisting the facts himself and was quite devious and ill-informed when writing pre-war. When advising Hore-Belisha he probably did much to ensure the British Army was not properly prepared to enter World War Two.   I always thought he was given too much credit for his thoughts on armoured  warfare and the expanding torrent theory of tactics; much of the original thought was other people's work that he plagiarized.  IMO he was not the prophet he has been made out to be by the same ilk who heaped opprobrium on Haig.  While his "Strategy: The Indirect Approach"  has a lot of merit he drew some very long bows with examples from  later wars to prove his theory.

All this emphasises Sir Michael Howard's wise advice to read widely, in depth and in context on any subject.

Regards
Chris

[PJA]

How did Joffre compare with Haig in this regard ?  Was he ever vilified in the same way ?  If not, why not ?  And the same question applies to so many others.

There is something unique in the British perspective. It is, I suppose, a function of a long standing tradition of avoiding mass continental land warfare. That goes a long way to explaining it ; but it still doesn't satisfy me as a comprehensive answer.

Might we be looking at the same phenomenon when we see how the British public react to the record of RAF Bomber Command and its controversial leader in the Second World War ?

Is this part of the same, special " British" thing ?

There are still people who insist on depicting Haig not only as an aberration, but also as an abomination.

The aberration aspect is understandable and surely jusitifed, in so far as Haig, alone among British generals in the modern era, had to engage in sustained mass continental land warfare against the main enemy. The abomination aspect is more challenging and much more troubling, in so far as it reveals the British people to be particularly susceptible to caricatured and unfair depiction.

Editing : I should, of course, have allowed for Haig's predecessor, French, who did have to contend with large scale continental land warfare, although not to the same degree of size, duration and intensity as that engaged in by Haig. How often has French been depicted as a " butcher" ?

Phil (PJA)

[Jim Smithson]

I would agree Phil, that thoroughout the 20th century there were those who for reasons both political and personal, endeavoured to blacken his name, the idea of butchery fell into their lap without second thought to others such as Joffre.  What has now entered the public psyche is the oft stated idea that the Great War itself was a abomination, caused by the blindness of those leading the armies; as if there was some other way of winning the war.  Thus anyone voicing such opinions feels safe in the warmth of general ignorance.  One thought with regard to Joffre is that he was defending his country and trying to win back occupied land - maybe the French psyche therefore paints him in a different light (Haig never 'saved' Britain in the way the French see Joffre as having done on the Marne.)  I do agree fully thought that there is a certain Britishness to the whole affair.  We are very good at the 'that was dreadful' when enjoying the benefits of hindsight and less prone to empathise with the decision making at the point in time (thus the Bomber Harris effect)

Jim

[Chris_Baker]

Perhaps a rather British thing (although I guess it would also apply to the USA) is that the reasons for going to war in Europe and the for the prolongation of the slaughter once the fighting had become entrenched are not clear: neither is whether it was all worthwhile. It was "the war to end all wars": well, clearly it was not. Britain was not under direct military threat. It is a "bad" war. This is especially so when compared to the more clear-cut "good" WW2. Joe Public see the bad war, unclear, run badly, for no result. Of course they do. Frankly I cannot see that changing and unless it does Haig will continue to be a pariah regardless of the output from research and scholarship.

[PJA]

Jim Smithson, on 20 August 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

  I do agree fully thought that there is a certain Britishness to the whole affair.  We are very good at the 'that was dreadful' when enjoying the benefits of hindsight and less prone to empathise with the decision making at the point in time (thus the Bomber Harris effect)

Jim

Yes, and how interesting it would be to get feedback from French and German accounts of how Haig was perceived.  Indeed, I would suggest - albeit tentatively - that there is a big gap in the literature here.  How did the Germans rate Haig ?  Did they express surprise at his persistence, or admiration at his steadfastness ? I am reminded of a famous comment made by one of Rommel's aides that when Monty arrived in North Africa, the war in the desert ceased to be a game. Do we have any comparable allusions to Haig ?

Phil (PJA)

[Crunchy]

I have often wondered at this British thing of heaping crude obscenities on their generals as incompetents for the losses suffered in the Great War, as if it were only the British who suffered enormous losses.  None of the critics seem to give any regard for the appalling casualties suffered by the Germans, French, Austrians, Russians, Italians and Ottomans during the same conflict. I accept of course many Australians, following the abominable Laffin's crude efforts have a similar attitude but this can be explained by our national immaturity and insecurities of blaming everyone else, plus a bit of Pom bashing.

On the other side of the coin the critics seem to think the Germans were all infinitely superior generals, despite their own dreadful mistakes and the terrible German losses, even in 1914. They ignore it was a badly outnumbered British Army, including Haig, who fought them to a standstill at Ypres inflicting terrible losses on the Germans whose continued attacks repeatedly broke against a stout British defence. Nor do they care to remember that it was Falkenhayn who first deliberately set out on a policy of attrition to bleed the French white, while accepting his own forces would suffer terrible losses in the process.

Why is this so? Is it tied up with British class attitudes and the last vestiges of the class war?  It certainly comes through in Winter's work. Whatever the reasons, all they are doing is denigrating their own Nation, and the men who fought and died for what they believed in, which is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

Regards
Chris

[Jim Smithson]

Phil - Haig does not get much air time in Germany.  You do not find the same kind of literature on him as in English.  In fact it is amusing to Google his name on sites only from Germany.  For every entry on the actual Douglas Haig there are 10 for the Argentinian football team Club Atlético Douglas Haig.  They lost on Saturday by the way so it cannot be said that Douglas Haig never loses!

Seriously though, i will look at what literature there is on the man stemming from German sources, maybe Egbert and others can help.  I do not think there is much.

Jim

[PJA]

Thank you, Jim : that would be very interesting.

Foch, Petain and Joffre : all three names ring with " personality".....rather an inept use of words by me, but I hope that I make some kind of sense.  We do not endow the British victory of 1918 with the stamp of Haig's personality.... even if we acknowledge his role. Something just isn't there.  I wish I could express it better.

Could it be that he was, essentially, a dull man who performed with remarkable competence and resolve ?

Here's hoping that a book will come with enough anecdote to bring the man to life.

Phil (PJA)

[Jack Sheldon]

Chris

Careful about who fought the Germans to a standstill at Ypres in 1914. When I studied it to write my 1914 book, I was struck by how well the Belgians did, all things considered, and how utterly crucial the French contribution was to the eventual Allied defensive victory there. Not only did they take over large chunks of the line, eventually manning more or less  2/3 to the BEF 1/3, but it was also they who came riding to the rescue every time the British line threatened to collapse. This is not to say that the BEF did not punch above its weight, but there can be absolutely no comparison between the quality of the German Fourth Army, which was scratched up out of nothing - and whose performance reflected that - and the First Army the BEF fought at Mons or Le Cateau.

'Feels safe in the warmth of general ignorance'. I love it, Jim. Is it a copyrighted expression?

Jack

[Jim Smithson]

Jack Sheldon, on 20 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Chris

'Feels safe in the warmth of general ignorance'. I love it, Jim. Is it a copyrighted expression?

Jack

Feel free to use - it's not often I string more than 5 coherant words together.  I've been quoting enough from your Vimy book recently as I write, which of course should anything ever near a publishing house, I will go on bended knee to ask permission for.

Jim

Jim

[Crunchy]

Jack Sheldon, on 20 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Chris

Careful about who fought the Germans to a standstill at Ypres in 1914. When I studied it to write my 1914 book, I was struck by how well the Belgians did, all things considered, and how utterly crucial the French contribution was to the eventual Allied defensive victory there. Not only did they take over large chunks of the line, eventually manning more or less  2/3 to the BEF 1/3, but it was also they who came riding to the rescue every time the British line threatened to collapse. This is not to say that the BEF did not punch above its weight, but there can be absolutely no comparison between the quality of the German Fourth Army, which was scratched up out of nothing - and whose performance reflected that - and the First Army the BEF fought at Mons or Le Cateau.

Jack

Hi Jack,

I fully agree with you comments. I was just focussing on the BEF  and Haig's  contribution in the battle as an example of what those who seek to paint him as incompetent choose to ignore.

Nonetheless, as you rightly point out, the Belgians and the French made a huge contribution at 1st Ypres.

Best wishes
Chris

[PJA]

Jack Sheldon, on 20 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Careful about who fought the Germans to a standstill at Ypres in 1914. When I studied it to write my 1914 book, I was struck by how well the Belgians did, all things considered, and how utterly crucial the French contribution was to the eventual Allied defensive victory there. Not only did they take over large chunks of the line, eventually manning more or less  2/3 to the BEF 1/3, but it was also they who came riding to the rescue every time the British line threatened to collapse.

Jack

And how far, do you think, would Haig himself have endorsed that statement ?

At the risk of spoiling the party, I think we must acknowledge that many of Haig's remarks about the French were none too complimentary.

Phil (PJA)

[Jim Smithson]

PJA, on 21 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

And how far, do you think, would Haig himself have endorsed that statement ?

At the risk of spoiling the party, I think we must acknowledge that many of Haig's remarks about the French were none too complimentary.

Phil (PJA)

I think that was mutual.  However, what is important to note is that Haig almost always did his duty in supporting the French, whatever he thought of them, to his immense credit.  An example I've just been working on is his demanding a continuation of the offensive on Aubers Ridge because of news that the French had early successes further south.  That he could not and eventually came under criticism from the French, was not his fault; there being few shells left!

HIs letters to Nivelle, throughout the planning for the April 1917 offensives, are a brilliant example of his diplomatic and collegiate work with the French.  His annoyance with Nivelle, especially in March, never comes through.  He did his duty in a way that makes those in powerful positions in the 21st century look woeful.

Jim

[Jack Sheldon]

Phil

The point I was making was that the Battle for Flanders that autumn was fought from the Lys to the sea, not just astride the Menin Road (I exaggerate, of course, but you get the point). I am not sure quite what Haig might have said about it, but you do not have to look hard in the French literature to come aross very critical remaks about the BEF. Furthermore, a search through BOH 1914 France and Belgium Vol 2 reveals lots of acknowledged examples of the propping up, reinforcement and assumption of ever increasing lengths of the front by the French army. Langemark is a classic example. The British fought there for only three days before they were relieved on 24 Oct 14, but the battle raged on into mid Nov, with the French beating off, not only the raw troops of the new reserve corps, but also stopping dead the later attempts by the much more effective formations of III Res Corps and, finally 9th Res Div, rushed north from Verdun.

Jack

[PJA]

Thank you, Jim, excellent stuff.

We do need a good deal more literature about this aspect of Haig's record, and I have to say that you make a very convincing case that his conduct as a coalition general was exemplary.

If we could get some more input into how he was perceived by his allies - and, more especially - by his enemy, then I think the Haig historiography would take a very positive turn.

Twenty odd years ago I attended a WFA meeting in London and John Terraine delivered a lecture about Haig. I remember standing up and asking him the very question that I've implied above : how do we reconcile the  favourable image of Hiag's record that he ( Terraine) was advocating when we see the disparaging things he wrote about the French.

John Terraine " went into one"...

" RIGHT !!  Let's put THAT one to bed, SHALL WE ?" he blurted out and he threw a book down onto his lectern.

He then cited a passage that Haig had written depicting the huge sacrifices made by the French, and how it was vital to remember how they had shouldered such a huge burden.  I'm sure you're familiar with those comments from his diary, written in 1915.

I thanked him for chastening me, and sat down.  I should really have suggedted that Haig was protesting too much, almost as if the passage were a kind of disclaimer for his more acerbic comments about Frenchmen, but discretion got the better part of valour.

Phil (PJA)

[RogerShephard]

Crunchy, on 19 August 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

The whole controversy on Haig centers around the casualties the BEF suffered, ..........
........It seems some people believe a major war can be won with minimal casualties;

Crunchy, on 20 August 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

....  None of the critics seem to give any regard for the appalling casualties suffered by the Germans, French, Austrians, Russians, Italians and Ottomans during the same conflict. .............
On the other side of the coin the critics seem to think the Germans were all infinitely superior generals, despite their own dreadful mistakes and the terrible German losses,

I am neutral on Haig although in another thread a year or so ago that was seen as a red cape at a bull to some.
I think Chris has probably summed up the conflict that most people have when they first look at the Great War and Haig, the myth that the German Generals were fanastic and the British bumbling. It is probably the short easy answer when you are faced with the pointless horror of the whole thing. How else do you reason the horror of the war other than to assume someone mucked up

When you get into the nuts and bolts it not so straight forward.

[PJA]

Jack Sheldon, on 21 August 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Phil

The point I was making was that the Battle for Flanders that autumn was fought from the Lys to the sea, not just astride the Menin Road (I exaggerate, of course, but you get the point). I am not sure quite what Haig might have said about it, but you do not have to look hard in the French literature to come aross very critical remaks about the BEF. Furthermore, a search through BOH 1914 France and Belgium Vol 2 reveals lots of acknowledged examples of the propping up, reinforcement and assumption of ever increasing lengths of the front by the French army. Langemark is a classic example. The British fought there for only three days before they were relieved on 24 Oct 14, but the battle raged on into mid Nov, with the French beating off, not only the raw troops of the new reserve corps, but also stopping dead the later attempts by the much more effective formations of III Res Corps and, finally 9th Res Div, rushed north from Verdun.

Jack

Yes, and please let me say, Jack, that in your German Army at Ypres 1914, you give a wonderful account of the skill and determination of the Franco - Belgian defence in the northern sector of the Flanders battle, when you cite German accounts of the shock they had when they pressed home attacks at Dicksmuide on October 21st 1914 :

Enemy machine guns !  They must be hidden behind hedges, walls or trees

Account of Kriegsreiwilliger Karl Classow 1st Company Reserve Infantry Regiment 201, pages 186-189.

It was not just British musketry that shot the Germans flat in those battles.

Phil (PJA)