Haig; Murderer or Judged too harshly? (1 Viewer)

[Louis Badolato]

There is a simple answer, Simmo, get rid of all the politicians. They are always the ones to cause wars, and then hamstring the military with their parsimony. To quote Blair, "The hand of history was on my shoulder,"....it should have been round his throat.

I'm with you 100% my friend.

 

[Mitch]

Lancer...

Nice post mate. What was missed by a few in their responses was that contrary to popular belief the army at that time was relatively modern and open to new technology. was it about 3% of the army was cavalry which, many believe was Haigs main train of thought in winning battles. some, 22,000 served in the tank corps. The technological revolution that was sweeping through the british army (as well as others) was dramatic for these officers.

One of the big failures was an ability for the artillery etc to keep up with the advances which, were wanted from the troops. An early lack of co-ordination between these branches was a major fault but, IMO no general could have done better in those circumstances.

I think hindsight is a tremendous weapon and looking back many historians etc have not really come up with any plans other than 'no war at all' which, would have reduced the amount of deaths which occured.
Mitch

Sorry I'm so late to this thread. I used to be very harsh on Haig but have modified my line of thought over the years. The results are long in and it is easy to criticize any decisions that have been made in any given conflict. Haig is a very controversial figure and rightly deserves much of the flak he receives. Truth is that Haig was no better or worse than most of his contemporaries, on either side. Remember that all WW1 generals were thrown into a war on a scale that NO ONE was ready to fight, especially on the tactical level. Everything was on a much larger scale than ever before. No one had any experience controlling such huge armies and sending them against the new weapons of war that made their appearance. Everything had a learning curve. The machine gun changed everything that the generals had been trained for their whole lives and it took a long time for the lessons to be learned that the MG changed. Could Haig have done better? Sure could have, but so could have everyone else. The generals had all been trained in the school of the offensive, with glorious infantry and cavalry charges. The MG was a rude shock that many just never adjusted to and the whole war ended up being an attempt to beat what the MG taught. Almost all tactical innovations and new weapons were developed to break the strangle hold that the MG brought to the battlefield. Only a handful of Allied generals emerged from the war with a good reputation and many of those "good" reputations were only because of the final victory. In a war of attrition, no one wins. Just as a final question, who could have lead the war effort any better than Haig? Don't say "Anyone!" because that just isn't true. There were a very few number of men who had achieved the professional level Haig had reached and fewer still who would have had the temperament to do it. I am not saying Haig was a great general but he did his duty as he saw it and did not shirk or crack, as others might have. -- Al

 

[blaster]

I just think, IMO that is quite a sweeping statement.
Mitch

Not really. If you think about it, the whole lot was incompetent. No point in trying to put caveats on specific details of coordination, lack of support, artillery, technology advances etc. What is clear is the sheer scale of needless slaughter unparalleled in human history. Let's not tiptoe round the poppies.

Rgds Victor

 

[OzDigger]

Sorry I'm so late to this thread. I used to be very harsh on Haig but have modified my line of thought over the years. The results are long in and it is easy to criticize any decisions that have been made in any given conflict. Haig is a very controversial figure and rightly deserves much of the flak he receives. Truth is that Haig was no better or worse than most of his contemporaries, on either side. Remember that all WW1 generals were thrown into a war on a scale that NO ONE was ready to fight, especially on the tactical level. Everything was on a much larger scale than ever before. No one had any experience controlling such huge armies and sending them against the new weapons of war that made their appearance. Everything had a learning curve. The machine gun changed everything that the generals had been trained for their whole lives and it took a long time for the lessons to be learned that the MG changed. Could Haig have done better? Sure could have, but so could have everyone else. The generals had all been trained in the school of the offensive, with glorious infantry and cavalry charges. The MG was a rude shock that many just never adjusted to and the whole war ended up being an attempt to beat what the MG taught. Almost all tactical innovations and new weapons were developed to break the strangle hold that the MG brought to the battlefield. Only a handful of Allied generals emerged from the war with a good reputation and many of those "good" reputations were only because of the final victory. In a war of attrition, no one wins. Just as a final question, who could have lead the war effort any better than Haig? Don't say "Anyone!" because that just isn't true. There were a very few number of men who had achieved the professional level Haig had reached and fewer still who would have had the temperament to do it. I am not saying Haig was a great general but he did his duty as he saw it and did not shirk or crack, as others might have. -- Al

The Machine Gun was in use well before World War One and was used by the British with deadly effect against groups of men in a number of Colonial conflicts prior to World War One. Consequently the machine gun cannot be offered as an excuse for the incompetence of the British Generalship during World War One.

 

[Rob]

In respect to Haig and the Somme the only way the machine gun can be brought into the equation is the fact that Haig was rumoured to be doubtful of its effectiveness and dismissed it as a major obstacle, a doubt that no doubt did for many of his men that day.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Gentlemen

I have already posted a comment on Rob's thread and anyone who has read it will know which side of the Haig fence I stand on to which I make no apologies for. Along with the ACW and Custer at the Little Big Horn which I have since discovered is also far too controversial to discuss here on the forum, the Western Front of WW1 is a subject I have studied extensively. Like most British families both sets of my Great Grandfather's and numerous Great Uncles fought and died during that war and I possess their diaries and the letters they sent home-very few mention Haig but all of them portray proud men fighting for a cause they firmly believed in regardless of the mud; blood and slaughter we all know took place during those dreadful four years.

There is a plethora of books both defending and vilifying this most controversial Victorian gentleman and any student of the war on the Western Front will have great difficulty coming to a final conclusion based on Rob's thread title as it will simply depend which author you enjoyed reading or who you personally considered gave the most balanced view. As Lancer has mentioned his view has changed over the years and I am sure that is based on various volumes he has read.

But any serious student of the Somme offensive simply must arrive at the conclusion I have that the whole planning of the campaign was clumsy; ham-fisted and downright amateurish considering we had been fighting for two years. It has been stated and I fully agree with the statement that the problem with Haig and his Chief of Staff in London Sir William Robertson was that although they had got the reasoning of the war right ie that it must be decided on the Western Front, they also believed that they must have a spectacular victory to prove how right they were. But their strategy throughout 1916 to mid 1918 and more importantly their attitude proved totally ineffectual against the hard German professionalism that manifested itself in the form of accurate shell; machine gun and rifle fire. The mass bombardment that was repeatedly used that simply announced to the enemy an imminent Allied offensive was proven again and again almost ad infinitum to be absolutely fruitless and totally ineffective on the German lines. Haig did not possess the necessary breadth of vision or imagination to plan a great campaign and when things went wrong as in any battle they inevitably will he always appeared to be utterly devoid of any imagination to change tactics. He was simply the embodiment of the national character of the time in the old Colonial army tradition.

My final piece of evidence and a challenge to any frogger on this thread is this

In 1926 Haig wrote an article for the London Times on the impact WW1 had made on military tactics:-

"........I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the soldier and the horse and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse-the well bred horse- as you have ever done in the past"

No doubt this was read and unfortunately believed by the commanders of the Polish Army who put Haig's "words of wisdom" in practice during September 1939.

Reb

 

[OzDigger]

OMG, not only did Haig not have a clue about Machine Guns, he also reckoned Airplanes and Tanks were an 'accessory'. The depth of that mans stupidity, or at best lack of vision, is endless.

 

[Mitch]

UKReb....

Was the polish cavalry charges against german armour, so quoted in history, recently shown to be somewhat over hyped in terms of the original belief?? I think it was. I agree with a lot you are saying but, again, the use of the horse was overstated as an attack on Haigs ability to move with the times If, and I am sure you will have read the papers and books by author Brian Bond he clearly shows this.
I think Haig was also talking among other things about the utility of the horse to soldiers in that comment as much as it being a weapon of war in terms of cavalry but, as proven in WWII the horse did indeed prove pivotal over many vehicles in many theatres.

Its been a very interesting and informative debate
Mitch

Gentlemen

I have already posted a comment on Rob's thread and anyone who has read it will know which side of the Haig fence I stand on to which I make no apologies for. Along with the ACW and Custer at the Little Big Horn which I have since discovered is also far too controversial to discuss here on the forum, the Western Front of WW1 is a subject I have studied extensively. Like most British families both sets of my Great Grandfather's and numerous Great Uncles fought and died during that war and I possess their diaries and the letters they sent home-very few mention Haig but all of them portray proud men fighting for a cause they firmly believed in regardless of the mud; blood and slaughter we all know took place during those dreadful four years.

There is a plethora of books both defending and vilifying this most controversial Victorian gentleman and any student of the war on the Western Front will have great difficulty coming to a final conclusion based on Rob's thread title as it will simply depend which author you enjoyed reading or who you personally considered gave the most balanced view. As Lancer has mentioned his view has changed over the years and I am sure that is based on various volumes he has read.

But any serious student of the Somme offensive simply must arrive at the conclusion I have that the whole planning of the campaign was clumsy; ham-fisted and downright amateurish considering we had been fighting for two years. It has been stated and I fully agree with the statement that the problem with Haig and his Chief of Staff in London Sir William Robertson was that although they had got the reasoning of the war right ie that it must be decided on the Western Front, they also believed that they must have a spectacular victory to prove how right they were. But their strategy throughout 1916 to mid 1918 and more importantly their attitude proved totally ineffectual against the hard German professionalism that manifested itself in the form of accurate shell; machine gun and rifle fire. The mass bombardment that was repeatedly used that simply announced to the enemy an imminent Allied offensive was proven again and again almost ad infinitum to be absolutely fruitless and totally ineffective on the German lines. Haig did not possess the necessary breadth of vision or imagination to plan a great campaign and when things went wrong as in any battle they inevitably will he always appeared to be utterly devoid of any imagination to change tactics. He was simply the embodiment of the national character of the time in the old Colonial army tradition.

My final piece of evidence and a challenge to any frogger on this thread is this

In 1926 Haig wrote an article for the London Times on the impact WW1 had made on military tactics:-

"........I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the soldier and the horse and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse-the well bred horse- as you have ever done in the past"

No doubt this was read and unfortunately believed by the commanders of the Polish Army who put Haig's "words of wisdom" in practice during September 1939.

Reb

 

[UKReb]

Mitch

Remember this was written in 1926-had the man learnt nothing from those years on the Western Front? I fear not.

I assume you are not stating that his comment referred to "well bred horses" dragging soup kitchens up to the front line as a poor example If so you read somewhat differently to me as surely the clues for his thoughts and firm belief are contained within his text

Aeroplanes and tanks as accessories to the soldier and the horse??? To support your comment of cavalry still being a worthwhile retention for the army then surely by 1926 the horse should be quoted as an accessory to the up and coming modern tools of war the aeroplane and tank?

But as I said Haig will always have his defenders as well as his critics but for me he was a well bred stubborn gentleman with a certain intelligence of secondary quality-and a very very good friend of KGV.


Reb

 

[Mitch]

UkReb...

I was reffering to the usage of the horse in general which, he did speak about 'pure breed' and meant attacking with no doubt but, I don't think after the war anyone imagined another trench war situation where defence was the priority and, believe he was talking again about fast moving attacks. Well, that is apart from the french defensive mentality with the Maginot Line I am not a for or against as its a complex situation as many issues arose not just his ability or lack off thats why its still debated today. Its just not as black and white as is often portrayed
Mitch

Mitch

Remember this was written in 1926-had the man learnt nothing from those years on the Western Front? I fear not.

I assume you are not stating that his comment referred to "well bred horses" dragging soup kitchens up to the front line as a poor example If so you read somewhat differently to me as surely the clues for his thoughts and firm belief are contained within his text

Aeroplanes and tanks as accessories to the soldier and the horse??? To support your comment of cavalry still being a worthwhile retention for the army then surely by 1926 the horse should be quoted as an accessory to the up and coming modern tools of war the aeroplane and tank?

But as I said Haig will always have his defenders as well as his critics but for me he was a well bred stubborn gentleman with a certain intelligence of secondary quality-and a very very good friend of KGV.


Reb

 

[lancer]

The Machine Gun was in use well before World War One and was used by the British with deadly effect against groups of men in a number of Colonial conflicts prior to World War One. Consequently the machine gun cannot be offered as an excuse for the incompetence of the British Generalship during World War One.

Hi Oz. I don't offer the use of the MG as an excuse for British generalship. I offer the MG as the reason for WW1 being fought the way it was by all concerned. There was a learning curve for the tactical use of the MG and for the tactics to combat it. The Germans learned the lessons earlier than the Allies, who in any case felt that they had to maintain the offensive to drive the Germans out in order to win the war. WW1 is a particularly cruel example of the weapons being superior to the generals and tactics. Without the tank and it's use in mass, there was almost no way to break the deadlock that was not going to cause huge casualties until someone ran out of men. No way to fight a war, eh? I just fell that the MG was the game changer that needed the tank to trump it. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Gentlemen

I have already posted a comment on Rob's thread and anyone who has read it will know which side of the Haig fence I stand on to which I make no apologies for. Along with the ACW and Custer at the Little Big Horn which I have since discovered is also far too controversial to discuss here on the forum, the Western Front of WW1 is a subject I have studied extensively. Like most British families both sets of my Great Grandfather's and numerous Great Uncles fought and died during that war and I possess their diaries and the letters they sent home-very few mention Haig but all of them portray proud men fighting for a cause they firmly believed in regardless of the mud; blood and slaughter we all know took place during those dreadful four years.

There is a plethora of books both defending and vilifying this most controversial Victorian gentleman and any student of the war on the Western Front will have great difficulty coming to a final conclusion based on Rob's thread title as it will simply depend which author you enjoyed reading or who you personally considered gave the most balanced view. As Lancer has mentioned his view has changed over the years and I am sure that is based on various volumes he has read.

But any serious student of the Somme offensive simply must arrive at the conclusion I have that the whole planning of the campaign was clumsy; ham-fisted and downright amateurish considering we had been fighting for two years. It has been stated and I fully agree with the statement that the problem with Haig and his Chief of Staff in London Sir William Robertson was that although they had got the reasoning of the war right ie that it must be decided on the Western Front, they also believed that they must have a spectacular victory to prove how right they were. But their strategy throughout 1916 to mid 1918 and more importantly their attitude proved totally ineffectual against the hard German professionalism that manifested itself in the form of accurate shell; machine gun and rifle fire. The mass bombardment that was repeatedly used that simply announced to the enemy an imminent Allied offensive was proven again and again almost ad infinitum to be absolutely fruitless and totally ineffective on the German lines. Haig did not possess the necessary breadth of vision or imagination to plan a great campaign and when things went wrong as in any battle they inevitably will he always appeared to be utterly devoid of any imagination to change tactics. He was simply the embodiment of the national character of the time in the old Colonial army tradition.

My final piece of evidence and a challenge to any frogger on this thread is this

In 1926 Haig wrote an article for the London Times on the impact WW1 had made on military tactics:-

"........I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the soldier and the horse and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse-the well bred horse- as you have ever done in the past"

No doubt this was read and unfortunately believed by the commanders of the Polish Army who put Haig's "words of wisdom" in practice during September 1939.

Reb

Bob,

I am, as always, amazed by the bredth and depth of your knowledge. Absolutely perfect analysis of Haig. I had read that quote before, but I had no idea it was from after the war (1926!!!).

Mitch,

Are you kidding me? The Polish army was really effective in its use of horses? The German's use of horses as a primary mode of logistical transport was a good idea, rather than one of the main reasons for their later downfall? Modern warfare has no legitimate place for the horse, and the fact that Haig could not recognize this even in 1926 is for me, the absolute final proof that he was a murderous idiot. I would, after reading Bob's post, change my vote from sacking him after the Somme to executing him, preferably with a machine gun as he sinks in the mudd at Passchendaele.

 

[OzDigger]

Hi Oz. I don't offer the use of the MG as an excuse for British generalship. I offer the MG as the reason for WW1 being fought the way it was by all concerned. There was a learning curve for the tactical use of the MG and for the tactics to combat it. The Germans learned the lessons earlier than the Allies, who in any case felt that they had to maintain the offensive to drive the Germans out in order to win the war. WW1 is a particularly cruel example of the weapons being superior to the generals and tactics. Without the tank and it's use in mass, there was almost no way to break the deadlock that was not going to cause huge casualties until someone ran out of men. No way to fight a war, eh? I just fell that the MG was the game changer that needed the tank to trump it. -- Al

Al, the fact is that it is pointless to send groups of men advancing slowly in daylight against entrenched positions. It really doesn't matter if the enemy have machine guns or not. World War One started in 1914 and The Somme offensive commenced on 1 July 1916, surely by then it would be clear to even the most dim witted General that if you keep doing the same old thing you will have the same old result. Obviously 60,000 casualties on the first day of that battle proved that wrong.

The tank was overated in World War One and its effectiveness was subsequently exagerated post WWI to the point that Blitzkrieg methods were continued into World War Two and beyond. The tank didn't win WWI, the Germans were just thru fighting and wanted a truce. The draconian methods inflicted by the allies on the Germans after that war enabled Hitler to gain a foothold and subsequently inflict his weird beliefs on German society and then others.

Imo World War One lacked any glory and was a sorry endictment of mans stupidity and inhumanity. The fact that so many British and Imperial troops were shot for cowardess etc only makes WWI all the more distasteful. No doubt most soldiers believed they may as well be shot by the Germans as their own side. At least Australian soldiers were spared that indignity.

 

[lancer]

Al, the fact is that it is pointless to send groups of men advancing slowly in daylight against entrenched positions. It really doesn't matter if the enemy have machine guns or not. World War One started in 1914 and The Somme offensive commenced on 1 July 1916, surely by then it would be clear to even the most dim witted General that if you keep doing the same old thing you will have the same old result. Obviously 60,000 casualties on the first day of that battle proved that wrong.

The tank was overated in World War One and its effectiveness was subsequently exagerated post WWI to the point that Blitzkrieg methods were continued into World War Two and beyond. The tank didn't win WWI, the Germans were just thru fighting and wanted a truce. The draconian methods inflicted by the allies on the Germans after that war enabled Hitler to gain a foothold and subsequently inflict his weird beliefs on German society and then others.

Imo World War One lacked any glory and was a sorry endictment of mans stupidity and inhumanity. The fact that so many British and Imperial troops were shot for cowardess etc only makes WWI all the more distasteful. No doubt most soldiers believed they may as well be shot by the Germans as their own side. At least Australian soldiers were spared that indignity.

Oz, you make good points. I do disagree about the MG not making any difference on the Somme. I do not really believe that the German defenders on July 1 could have inflicted anywhere near 60000 casualties or halted the attack in it's tracks, without the MG. Granted that the British tactics were unimaginative and ripe for slaughter, but the attack would probably been an overwhelming success had it not been for the German MGer's who inflicted the vast majority of the casualties. The MG made the losses, combined with the idiot tactics, inevitable. The MG was the game changer that made WW1 such a massacre. That the leadership couldn't cope with this weapon only adds to the horror. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

Oz, you make good points. I do disagree about the MG not making any difference on the Somme. I do not really believe that the German defenders on July 1 could have inflicted anywhere near 60000 casualties or halted the attack in it's tracks, without the MG. Granted that the British tactics were unimaginative and ripe for slaughter, but the attack would probably been an overwhelming success had it not been for the German MGer's who inflicted the vast majority of the casualties. The MG made the losses, combined with the idiot tactics, inevitable. The MG was the game changer that made WW1 such a massacre. That the leadership couldn't cope with this weapon only adds to the horror. -- Al

Al, the machine-gun only makes a difference in terms of the number killed, it was the tactics used that were wrong, time and time again. It is also worth noting that in actual use machine-guns are not nearly as accurate as aimed rifle fire.

 

[lancer]

Al, the machine-gun only makes a difference in terms of the number killed, it was the tactics used that were wrong, time and time again. It is also worth noting that in actual use machine-guns are not nearly as accurate as aimed rifle fire.

A difference that is pretty important though. I fully agree about the tactics, accuracy and such. I think it is still worth considering what WW1 would have been fought like without the proliferation of the MG. Faulty tactics would not have been punished so severely, nor would tactics have eventually evolved like they did. The lack of the MG would have changed everything. Interesting to contemplate. -- Al

 

[Rob]

A difference that is pretty important though. I fully agree about the tactics, accuracy and such. I think it is still worth considering what WW1 would have been fought like without the proliferation of the MG. Faulty tactics would not have been punished so severely, nor would tactics have eventually evolved like they did. The lack of the MG would have changed everything. Interesting to contemplate. -- Al

The MG was king of the Somme battlefield at least on the first day. If you stand in the sunken lane (not far from Newfoundland memorial park)scramble up the side of it you are in the footsteps of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers,who on that day were slaughtered as they tried to get out of that Lane by machine guns on Hawthorn ridge and Beaumont Hamel. You can stand there (being careful not to fall into the pit that has opened up where a large dugout has collapsed) and easily see how the machine guns had these guys pegged from the moment they tried to advance, so good were their positions in surrounding woods.They were even mowing down reinforcements trying to just get to the lane. Three times the Lancs tried to get out over that Lane and three times they got no more than a few yards from the lip of it,by 7.30 it was full of dead and wounded men.

As many have said,ignorance about the effectiveness of the mg was probably one of the biggest crimes that day. Put alongside it the order to march not charge and it was truly criminal. How many German machine gunners said of that day 'If they'd charged at us,there were so many we could never have stopped them'.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Do not know how I am kidding you? I diod not state the poles were effective with horses I was stating a response about the misnomer that poles on mass charged with cavalry against german panzers it did not happen like its been reported. so, Cannot understand who I am trying to kid!!! Also, did not state anything about the german downfall attributable to anything and, commented on their use of the horse when other transport would not work and other armies in WWII using horses in such places as Burma etc where it was a neccessity.

Other than that I cannot see what was kidding in the posts. Perhaps you can enlighten where I was supposed to have said these issues
Mitch

Bob,

I am, as always, amazed by the bredth and depth of your knowledge. Absolutely perfect analysis of Haig. I had read that quote before, but I had no idea it was from after the war (1926!!!).

Mitch,

Are you kidding me? The Polish army was really effective in its use of horses? The German's use of horses as a primary mode of logistical transport was a good idea, rather than one of the main reasons for their later downfall? Modern warfare has no legitimate place for the horse, and the fact that Haig could not recognize this even in 1926 is for me, the absolute final proof that he was a murderous idiot. I would, after reading Bob's post, change my vote from sacking him after the Somme to executing him, preferably with a machine gun as he sinks in the mudd at Passchendaele.

 

[trooper]

With regard to the use of horses in WW2 it is worth remembering that all of the nations went to war with horsed cavalry. The British didn't fully mechanise until 1941, Indian cavalry undertook what was possibly the last cavalry charge in Burma, the Russians used cavalry right up to the end of the war and at no time was more than a third of the German army mechanised. The American cavalry operated in the Philipines and even the Japanese used hosed artillery. Which although not justifying Haig's remarks in 1926 just proves that WW2 wasn't all tracked AFVs.

 

[Rob]

I think there will always be differences when it comes to the subject of Haig,all opinions are valid and no one can be 100% correct in our judging of the man because none of us knew him. Whilst his mistakes cost thousands of lives his victories at the end of the war possibly saved even more. There is no arguing the slaughter of the Somme and Passchendaele, but no one has convinced me that he quite on purpose sat down and planned how to murder hundreds of thousands of his men for no purpose,he was whatever people think a career soldier and wanted victory for his country.

Rob