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

[Mitch]

Rob...

Well said, and, some of the knee-jerk reactionary comments about him from our US bretheran are truly amazing. Its very easy to sit and condone with hindsight this does not mean he was right but, he did his duty rightly or wrongly.
Mitch

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

 

[UKReb]

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

And didn't have a clue how to deliver it

I don't believe for one minute that he deliberately murdered all of those Tommies but after the Somme he should have been replaced from the frontline and we know why he wasn't.

Even the many authors who now state that he was misunderstood, he was under tremendous political pressure to stop the whole French army from walking away from their defensive lines struggle to find something good to say about him and his tactics at Passchandaele which was simply a repeat performance of the Somme with glutinous mud thrown into the mix.


Bob

 

[Rob]

Rob...

Well said, and, some of the knee-jerk reactionary comments about him from our US bretheran are truly amazing. Its very easy to sit and condone with hindsight this does not mean he was right but, he did his duty rightly or wrongly.
Mitch

Mitch, I just want people to be able to differentiate between incompetant and psychopath, world of difference.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Rob...

Well said, and, some of the knee-jerk reactionary comments about him from our US bretheran are truly amazing. Its very easy to sit and condone with hindsight this does not mean he was right but, he did his duty rightly or wrongly.
Mitch

Just for the record Mitch I'm British

 

[Louis Badolato]

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

Mitch,

I clearly misunderstood your position. I thought you were asserting that Haig was correct about the place for the horse in modern warfare, and that more recent analysis had concluded that the Poles use of cavalry was effective, as was the Germans use of horse transport instead of fully mechanizing their army. If, as your post asserts, this was not your intent, I appologize for my response. I will go back and re-read your earlier post more carefully.

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Thank you for that I did think it may have been that but, thought I would ask.
Mitch

Mitch,

I clearly misunderstood your position. I thought you were asserting that Haig was correct about the place for the horse in modern warfare, and that more recent analysis had concluded that the Poles use of cavalry was effective, as was the Germans use of horse transport instead of fully mechanizing their army. If, as your post asserts, this was not your intent, I appologize for my response. I will go back and re-read your earlier post more carefully.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis...

Thank you for that I did think it may have been that but, thought I would ask.
Mitch

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Lord knows it happens enough . . .

 

[Mitch]

UKReb...

I was commenting on some of the execute comments which, as stated with the advantage of hindsight and ignoring the socio economic and political conditions of that time for me, is knee-jerk.
I was always told to steer clear of politics and religion by my old tutor but, since coming on here I would venture History also. It was never like this at uni
Mitch

Just for the record Mitch I'm British

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

No problem, the passion sometimes gets to all of us. we are all fallible which, makes this site so much fun IMO
Mitch

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Lord knows it happens enough . . .

 

[UKReb]

Good Lord this forum is a mere nursery school when compared to my old Alma Mater especially when discussing Allied Commanders Strategy on the Western Front

 

[lancer]

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

Good post. If one concedes that the British Command was bad, what does that make the French command? The French Army went to war deliberately ignoring the possibilities of the MG, although begrudgingly having it in their arsenal. It took until mid 1917 for the French Army to reign in the "offensive at all costs" school of thought, by which time the French Army was all but ruined. Cripes, the French lost over 200,000 men in just the first 2 weeks during the Battle of the Frontiers and over a million in 1915. There was not a lot of brilliance involved by any nation on the Westfront. I still pose my question to who should have replaced Haig if he had been dismissed after the Somme. There just isn't much in the way of a viable option at that point. -- Al

 

[UKReb]

I still pose my question to who should have replaced Haig if he had been dismissed after the Somme. There just isn't much in the way of a viable option at that point. -- Al

A name not mentioned very often but still considered and highly regarded as one of the finest commanders serving in France during WWI is one Sir Hubert Plumer revered and affectionally known to his staff and his Second Army soldiers as "Old Plum" As an infantryman rather than all the other horse soldier commanders he understood the terrain and what his men could be capable of achieving.

He was the victor of The Battle of Messines and instead of continual bombardment used the Royal Engineers to tunnel under the German lines and placed 19 of the largest landmines ever created prompting him to say to his staff "Well gentleman we may not achieve an outright victory but by God we are going to change the geography" The battle opened with a massive explosion that was heard in Downing Street and Plumer's Second Army took all their objectives with the least casualties ever recorded by the British army during the war.

At Passachandaele Haig blamed the lack of progress not on the abnormal weather and the appalling conditions it caused-he blamed Gough and moved him and his 5th army to a front further north and although he loathed Plumer and had tried to have him removed umpteen times he had no other field commander to use and put him in charge of the battle.

Why did Haig hate him so?-possibly because he was not cavalry but primarily because Plumer had argued that insisting on the breakthrough strategy was not going to win the war. Plumers tactics were entirely different to Haig and Gough's single major sweeping movement. He used the "bite and hold" tactic making small gains that could be permanently held- he was the first to use artillery in support of advancing infantry. The result of putting him in charge was immediate successes at Menin Road Bridge; Polygon Wood and the Battle of Broodsenide and gave the British forces the advantages in the territory north of Ypres. Haig then became convinced that German morale was on the verge of collapsing and ordered Plumer to make a full frontal across the Passchandaele Ridge-and we all know the result of that.

Plumer was at one time considered for command of one of the two BEF Corps alongside Haig-but that old adage of politics being brought to bear saw him passed over. Guys I have absolutely no idea whether Plumer would have been a perfect replacement for Haig as he left no private papers or opinions of Western Front strategy but when you read about this guy he reminds you more of a WWII general rather than WWI.

Reb

 

[Louis Badolato]

A name not mentioned very often but still considered and highly regarded as one of the finest commanders serving in France during WWI is one Sir Hubert Plumer revered and affectionally known to his staff and his Second Army soldiers as "Old Plum" As an infantryman rather than all the other horse soldier commanders he understood the terrain and what his men could be capable of achieving.

He was the victor of The Battle of Messines and instead of continual bombardment used the Royal Engineers to tunnel under the German lines and placed 19 of the largest landmines ever created prompting him to say to his staff "Well gentleman we may not achieve an outright victory but by God we are going to change the geography" The battle opened with a massive explosion that was heard in Downing Street and Plumer's Second Army took all their objectives with the least casualties ever recorded by the British army during the war.

At Passachandaele Haig blamed the lack of progress not on the abnormal weather and the appalling conditions it caused-he blamed Gough and moved him and his 5th army to a front further north and although he loathed Plumer and had tried to have him removed umpteen times he had no other field commander to use and put him in charge of the battle.

Why did Haig hate him so?-possibly because he was not cavalry but primarily because Plumer had argued that insisting on the breakthrough strategy was not going to win the war. Plumers tactics were entirely different to Haig and Gough's single major sweeping movement. He used the "bite and hold" tactic making small gains that could be permanently held- he was the first to use artillery in support of advancing infantry. The result of putting him in charge was immediate successes at Menin Road Bridge; Polygon Wood and the Battle of Broodsenide and gave the British forces the advantages in the territory north of Ypres. Haig then became convinced that German morale was on the verge of collapsing and ordered Plumer to make a full frontal across the Passchandaele Ridge-and we all know the result of that.

Plumer was at one time considered for command of one of the two BEF Corps alongside Haig-but that old adage of politics being brought to bear saw him passed over. Guys I have absolutely no idea whether Plumer would have been a perfect replacement for Haig as he left no private papers or opinions of Western Front strategy but when you read about this guy he reminds you more of a WWII general rather than WWI.

Reb

Bob,

Thanks for the contunuing education. Sir Hubert Plumer sounds like a very viable candidate to replace Haig.

 

[OzDigger]

Bob, thank you for the info concerning Plumer, his ideas certainly must have clashed with those championing the relatively new 'Break-through' theories.

'The Myth of the Great War' and 'The Blitzkrieg Myth' by John Mosier remain two of my favorite books on that theory and others still widely accepted despite never being very effected in practice.

 

[UKReb]

Bob, thank you for the info concerning Plumer, his ideas certainly must have clashed with those championing the relatively new 'Break-through' theories.

'The Myth of the Great War' and 'The Blitzkrieg Myth' by John Mosier remain two of my favorite books on that theory and others still widely accepted despite never being very effected in practice.

Oz

Agree two great books well worth reading at least twice-difficult to pin Plumer down exactly as very few books deal with his overall tactics but he continually pops up in most WWI tomes as being a very "modern thinking general".

I have to admit (if you hadn't already noticed ) I am no fan of Haig even though over the years I have tried to allow him the benefit of just being a Colonial cavalry officer trying to get to grips with a war the world had never seen before but the more you study The Western Front the more you arrive at him being completely out of his depth and unable to switch tactics. He used the same basic plan throughout the war from the strategy he conceived at Neuve Chappelle when he was commander of the British 1st Army under Sir John French. Even the year before the Somme he used the same plan: General Hackett wrote of the Battle of Loos 1915 the following:-

.......12 battalions, 10,000 men, on a clear morning in columns, slowly advanced up a gentle slope towards the enemy's trenches. They found the wire had not been broken by the artillery barrage as they had been told and the British advance met a storm of machine gun fire........Incredulous...the Germans mowed down the attackers until three and a half hours later, the remnants staggered away having lost 385 officers and 7680 men. The Germans watching the survivors retreat stopped firing out of compassion-the German casualty count-Nil!

Then in 1916 we have the Somme-exactly the same plan exactly the same result.

A year later Passchendaele and here it gets worse-same plan-same opening artillery barrage except this time Haig had been given expert advice that the area he planned for his battle was below sea level and even now before any rain had fallen was only prevented from flooding by a system of drainage ditches and dykes. To open the battle with a tremendous artillery bombardment would destroy these.
Meanwhile the Germans geographically were very strong as they occupied the high ground of Passchendaele Ridge that extended from the east to the northwest of Ypres. The German High Command held off reinforcing this area with their fresh divisions released from the Eastern Front because they couldn't imagine that the British could be as stupid as to advance across such swampy ground-But we did and got absolutely obliterated in blood and mud.

Call me old fashioned but it is beyond me how any serious student of the Western Front can defend this man because the management of these battles suggests-surely-at the very least that he was either unable or refused to learn from his previous engagements and worse he continued to underate his enemy and the positions they held.

Bob

 

[Rob]

Oz

Agree two great books well worth reading at least twice-difficult to pin Plumer down exactly as very few books deal with his overall tactics but he continually pops up in most WWI tomes as being a very "modern thinking general".

I have to admit (if you hadn't already noticed ) I am no fan of Haig even though over the years I have tried to allow him the benefit of just being a Colonial cavalry officer trying to get to grips with a war the world had never seen before but the more you study The Western Front the more you arrive at him being completely out of his depth and unable to switch tactics. He used the same basic plan throughout the war from the strategy he conceived at Neuve Chappelle when he was commander of the British 1st Army under Sir John French. Even the year before the Somme he used the same plan: General Hackett wrote of the Battle of Loos 1915 the following:-

.......12 battalions, 10,000 men, on a clear morning in columns, slowly advanced up a gentle slope towards the enemy's trenches. They found the wire had not been broken by the artillery barrage as they had been told and the British advance met a storm of machine gun fire........Incredulous...the Germans mowed down the attackers until three and a half hours later, the remnants staggered away having lost 385 officers and 7680 men. The Germans watching the survivors retreat stopped firing out of compassion-the German casualty count-Nil!

Then in 1916 we have the Somme-exactly the same plan exactly the same result.

A year later Passchendaele and here it gets worse-same plan-same opening artillery barrage except this time Haig had been given expert advice that the area he planned for his battle was below sea level and even now before any rain had fallen was only prevented from flooding by a system of drainage ditches and dykes. To open the battle with a tremendous artillery bombardment would destroy these.
Meanwhile the Germans geographically were very strong as they occupied the high ground of Passchendaele Ridge that extended from the east to the northwest of Ypres. The German High Command held off reinforcing this area with their fresh divisions released from the Eastern Front because they couldn't imagine that the British could be as stupid as to advance across such swampy ground-But we did and got absolutely obliterated in blood and mud.

Call me old fashioned but it is beyond me how any serious student of the Western Front can defend this man because the management of these battles suggests-surely-at the very least that he was either unable or refused to learn from his previous engagements and worse he continued to underate his enemy and the positions they held.

Bob

Call me old fashioned but it is beyond me how any serious student of the Western Front can defend this man because the management of these battles suggests-surely-at the very least that he was either unable or refused to learn from his previous engagements and worse he continued to underate his enemy and the positions they held.


I think a serious student of the Western front can defend him because what you've just written there does not make him a murderer as popular press would have him, its simply does not add up. The guy was a career soldier tasked with leading the British army to victory, the idea that he sat down to work out how to slaughter thousands of his men is laughable.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Plumer sure appears to have been an option from what I have read, but as happened, had no chance because of Haig's deeply entrenched political connections in the highest of places. The British Army was going to win or lose with Haig, period. -- Al

 

[UKReb]

Call me old fashioned but it is beyond me how any serious student of the Western Front can defend this man because the management of these battles suggests-surely-at the very least that he was either unable or refused to learn from his previous engagements and worse he continued to underate his enemy and the positions they held.


I think a serious student of the Western front can defend him because what you've just written there does not make him a murderer as popular press would have him, its simply does not add up. The guy was a career soldier tasked with leading the British army to victory, the idea that he sat down to work out how to slaughter thousands of his men is laughable.

Rob

I don't think I have ever called him a deliberate murderer in any of my posts but he is not far off being the most incompetent British general of WWI/WWII

 

[UKReb]

Plumer sure appears to have been an option from what I have read, but as happened, had no chance because of Haig's deeply entrenched political connections in the highest of places. The British Army was going to win or lose with Haig, period. -- Al

Al

Absolutely spot on

Bob

 

[Rob]

Plumer sure appears to have been an option from what I have read, but as happened, had no chance because of Haig's deeply entrenched political connections in the highest of places. The British Army was going to win or lose with Haig, period. -- Al

Haig was responsible for leading the British army to a string of victories towards the end of the War, a fact that no one on this thread wants to acknowledge, why would that be do we think?.

Rob