Haig; Murderer or Judged too harshly? (2 Viewers)

[UKReb]

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

We have chewed over this subject before and I have no doubt there will always remains a clear blue space between the likes of mine and Louis's views and those of Rob's.

Haig was a well bred Victorian gentleman (his father owned the Haig whisky distilleries) making him well placed in high society. He was a man of very few words who despised and distrusted all politicians (a trait some of us share today). But he was an appallingly slow learner as was his general staff during that conflict-he knew the PM Lloyd George wanted him sacked but he also knew (via King George V) that the prime minister was not strong enough to do it and there lies the real tragedy of the horrors of Passchendaele.

However, from August 1918 the British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today they are all but forgotten except by military historians and Rob whilst the earlier bloodbaths are well documented and hence remembered


Sorry Rob-have to disagree old son-the above post was posted by yours truly on your Fromelles thread

Bob

 

[Rob]

We have chewed over this subject before and I have no doubt there will always remains a clear blue space between the likes of mine and Louis's views and those of Rob's.

Haig was a well bred Victorian gentleman (his father owned the Haig whisky distilleries) making him well placed in high society. He was a man of very few words who despised and distrusted all politicians (a trait some of us share today). But he was an appallingly slow learner as was his general staff during that conflict-he knew the PM Lloyd George wanted him sacked but he also knew (via King George V) that the prime minister was not strong enough to do it and there lies the real tragedy of the horrors of Passchendaele.

However, from August 1918 the British Army won a series of victories unmatched in our military history. Today they are all but forgotten except by military historians and Rob whilst the earlier bloodbaths are well documented and hence remembered


Sorry Rob-have to disagree old son-the above post was posted by yours truly on your Fromelles thread

Bob

Yes I know you said it Bob,but many folk don't wish to even mention it because it doesn't fit in with this outdated, Blackadder type view that all generals were mindless idiots merrily waving their men of to pointless deaths as cannon fodder. (actually most of the soldiers still believed in what they were doing by the Somme and resented the cannon fodder tag).

Sorry but just because someone is open to the other side of the argument does not mean they are not a serious student of the War mate. Everyone thinks they have Haig pegged 100%, and its all only opinion. No one here knew him, no one here can possibly imagine the pressure he was under and no one wants to talk about his victories or his work for the veterans after the war, they only want to talk Somme and Passchendaele, thats fine, but you can't have the whole picture of the man like that.

Rob

 

[lancer]

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

I will be glad to give Haig his due, as I have said before, he just wasn't as bad as I thought when I first started studying WW1. That said, he did have a long learning curve and he was generally acknowledged to be a stubborn man. I have not made a detailed study of 1917-18, knowing quite a bit less about the victories of 1918 than about the war from 1914-16. Were Haig's victories a result of new tactics and weapons; a collapse of German will and abilities; a logical combination of both or were the victories possible because of Allied (British Empire, American, French, etc.) co-operation at long last? In short, just how responsible for the victories of 1918 is Haig? -- Al

 

[UKReb]

I will be glad to give Haig his due, as I have said before, he just wasn't as bad as I thought when I first started studying WW1. That said, he did have a long learning curve and he was generally acknowledged to be a stubborn man. I have not made a detailed study of 1917-18, knowing quite a bit less about the victories of 1918 than about the war from 1914-16. Were Haig's victories a result of new tactics and weapons; a collapse of German will and abilities; a logical combination of both or were the victories possible because of Allied (British Empire, American, French, etc.) co-operation at long last? In short, just how responsible for the victories of 1918 is Haig? -- Al

Al
It was an almagamation of most of what you quote

The rise of "better" British generals such as Henry Rawlinson and John Monash most definitely helped as did the American army albeit Haig always considered them "disorganised" they were not just used different tactics to the British. But no-one realised how close to collapse were the Central Powers- even as late as October 1918 Haig told the War Cabinet that Germany would fight on well into 1919.

Yes Haig was in overall command of these brilliant British/American victories but for me (which doesn't amount to a hill of beans) the 1918 Allied victories clearly demonstrate the military mistakes of the earlier war years.

Bob

 

[OzDigger]

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

Rob, can we at least get you to consider that he should have spent more time slaughtering fewer.

 

[lancer]

Al
It was an almagamation of most of what you quote

The rise of "better" British generals such as Henry Rawlinson and John Monash most definitely helped as did the American army albeit Haig always considered them "disorganised" they were not just used different tactics to the British. But no-one realised how close to collapse were the Central Powers- even as late as October 1918 Haig told the War Cabinet that Germany would fight on well into 1919.

Yes Haig was in overall command of these brilliant British/American victories but for me (which doesn't amount to a hill of beans) the 1918 Allied victories clearly demonstrate the military mistakes of the earlier war years.

Bob

With my cursory knowledge of 1918, I suspected it was a combination of what I asked. To draw a real simple, and not real useful analogy, I believe the German offensives of 1918 threw away the German ability to draw out the war, much as the Ardennes offensive of 1944 threw away the German ability to draw out that later war. Obviously this is too simplistic but the underlying reason for the two offensives were somewhat similar with Germany facing desperate situations all around. Dwindling resources of all kinds and Allied growing strength left Germany with the option of an all or nothing offensive. The failure of both the 1918 offensives and the Ardennes offensive gutted the German Army and left a thin defensive shell for the Allies to crack in 1918 and 1945. Again, rather simply, it would seem Haig lasted long enough to gain the victory. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Rob, can we at least get you to consider that he should have spent more time slaughtering fewer.

Oz I'm happy to say he should have walked after the Somme, no doubting it. But to overlook the battles he oversaw that eventually won the War is to ignore a huge part of the conflict, many think that WW1 was just about the Somme, Passchendaele and Gallipoli (maybe Verdun too)it was not.But whatever we think of him Haig was at the helm at the end, he deserves credit for his role in that, and I think for that reason he has his statue and his place in history, whatever us history enthusiasts think of him.

Rob

 

[trooper]

One thing to be born in mind, and remember to view it without hindsight, is the tasks set and the assets available to achieve them. Haig had artillery and men. The tasks he was asked for was to win victories. The objectives were entrenched protected by wire. Early attempts failed, the next step would be to plan a larger attack, use more artillery, make a larger bombardment, use more men. If the front line could be breached the enemies back areas would be vulnerable, he would be forced to retreat and if hotly pursued the retreat could be forced into a rout. Basically this was always the plan, to break the line. Haig cannot really be blamed for viewing new weapons with scepticism, after all the Allied experiments with gas had been disastrous, and the tanks, when introduced, were unproven. The Somme was a disaster mainly because of the depth of the German bunkers which allowed so many of their machine gunners to survive the terrific barrage. There are no excuses for Paschendale which was just horrendous. But broadly speaking Haig fought the war in the best way he knew using the assets he had. To us with our experience of modern war much seems ameuterish but we are looking back nearly 100 years. The title of this thread is misleading. Haig was no murderer, anymore than any military commander who has to put his men in harm's way. He made mistakes, under estimated some things and over estimated others but under no circumstances deliberately killed his men. Every military plan includes an estimate of casualties, very few of them are 100% accurate.

 

[Rob]

One thing to be born in mind, and remember to view it without hindsight, is the tasks set and the assets available to achieve them. Haig had artillery and men. The tasks he was asked for was to win victories. The objectives were entrenched protected by wire. Early attempts failed, the next step would be to plan a larger attack, use more artillery, make a larger bombardment, use more men. If the front line could be breached the enemies back areas would be vulnerable, he would be forced to retreat and if hotly pursued the retreat could be forced into a rout. Basically this was always the plan, to break the line. Haig cannot really be blamed for viewing new weapons with scepticism, after all the Allied experiments with gas had been disastrous, and the tanks, when introduced, were unproven. The Somme was a disaster mainly because of the depth of the German bunkers which allowed so many of their machine gunners to survive the terrific barrage. There are no excuses for Paschendale which was just horrendous. But broadly speaking Haig fought the war in the best way he knew using the assets he had. To us with our experience of modern war much seems ameuterish but we are looking back nearly 100 years. The title of this thread is misleading. Haig was no murderer, anymore than any military commander who has to put his men in harm's way. He made mistakes, under estimated some things and over estimated others but under no circumstances deliberately killed his men. Every military plan includes an estimate of casualties, very few of them are 100% accurate.

Yes,the failure of the bombardment to kill enough Germans in their bunkers and cut the wire in front of them was down to artillery not Haig. But as you say no excuses for Passchendaele.

Rob

 

[lancer]

One thing to be born in mind, and remember to view it without hindsight, is the tasks set and the assets available to achieve them. Haig had artillery and men. The tasks he was asked for was to win victories. The objectives were entrenched protected by wire. Early attempts failed, the next step would be to plan a larger attack, use more artillery, make a larger bombardment, use more men. If the front line could be breached the enemies back areas would be vulnerable, he would be forced to retreat and if hotly pursued the retreat could be forced into a rout. Basically this was always the plan, to break the line. Haig cannot really be blamed for viewing new weapons with scepticism, after all the Allied experiments with gas had been disastrous, and the tanks, when introduced, were unproven. The Somme was a disaster mainly because of the depth of the German bunkers which allowed so many of their machine gunners to survive the terrific barrage. There are no excuses for Paschendale which was just horrendous. But broadly speaking Haig fought the war in the best way he knew using the assets he had. To us with our experience of modern war much seems ameuterish but we are looking back nearly 100 years. The title of this thread is misleading. Haig was no murderer, anymore than any military commander who has to put his men in harm's way. He made mistakes, under estimated some things and over estimated others but under no circumstances deliberately killed his men. Every military plan includes an estimate of casualties, very few of them are 100% accurate.

Very good, reasoned approach to the whole subject of Haig, and First World War generalship. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Oz I'm happy to say he should have walked after the Somme, no doubting it. But to overlook the battles he oversaw that eventually won the War is to ignore a huge part of the conflict, many think that WW1 was just about the Somme, Passchendaele and Gallipoli (maybe Verdun too)it was not.But whatever we think of him Haig was at the helm at the end, he deserves credit for his role in that, and I think for that reason he has his statue and his place in history, whatever us history enthusiasts think of him.

Rob

Rob,

Just playing devils advocate here, but what if these later victories are just evidence that Haig was not stupid and could learn, but was too stubborn and pridefull to change his tactics until the final disaster at Passchendaele belatedly convinced him that the tactics he clung to from 1914 through 1917 would never work. If that is the case, aren't these later victories just more evidence that he was criminally negligent in his handling of the men under his command from 1914 through 1916?

Personally, I don't think this is the case. I like Bob and Al, think he doesn't deserve much credit for the successes of 1918. Ther Germans had bled themselves white, and were as close to collapsing as an Army can be by 1918. Then the Americans arrived, providing a bunch of fresh troops. Finally, his better, and more successful underlings abandoned Haig's "over the top" strategy, and applied better tactics, adapted to deal with the realities of modern war. You show me a single document endorsed by Haig implementing or even approving the tactics employed in the 1918 battles, and I'll reconsider my position, but frankly, I don't think such a document exists. From what Bob showed us, Haig still clung to his ridiculous failed tactics in 1926. The man just couldn't admit he was wrong. But if you show me such a document, I will admit I was wrong (because while I am neither a great man nor a great general, I am a good enough person to admit when I am wrong).

 

[OzDigger]

Oz I'm happy to say he should have walked after the Somme, no doubting it. But to overlook the battles he oversaw that eventually won the War is to ignore a huge part of the conflict, many think that WW1 was just about the Somme, Passchendaele and Gallipoli (maybe Verdun too)it was not.But whatever we think of him Haig was at the helm at the end, he deserves credit for his role in that, and I think for that reason he has his statue and his place in history, whatever us history enthusiasts think of him.

Rob

Rob, I would say it's more the case that Haig became more succesful in later battles because the Germans were so much weaker, not because Haig got better at his job.

 

[trooper]

Rob,

Personally, I don't think this is the case. I like Bob and Al, think he doesn't deserve much credit for the successes of 1918. Ther Germans had bled themselves white, and were as close to collapsing as an Army can be by 1918. Then the Americans arrived, providing a bunch of fresh troops. Finally, his better, and more successful underlings abandoned Haig's "over the top" strategy, and applied better tactics, adapted to deal with the realities of modern war. You show me a single document endorsed by Haig implementing or even approving the tactics employed in the 1918 battles, and I'll reconsider my position, but frankly, I don't think such a document exists. From what Bob showed us, Haig still clung to his ridiculous failed tactics in 1926. The man just couldn't admit he was wrong. But if you show me such a document, I will admit I was wrong (because while I am neither a great man nor a great general, I am a good enough person to admit when I am wrong).

I don't think that an "underling" could implement a large scale plan without official approval. The use of so many assets, the amount of equipment to be moved and stored, the amount of ammunition to be requisitioned would all have to be sanctioned by the Commander in Chief ie Haig. Therefore it can be argued that although no specific document of the type you require might exist, the fact that the actions were undertaken implies that Haig approved them.

 

[UKReb]

Interesting and valid points raised by both Trooper and Louis. I agree with Trooper that Rob's thread title is mis-leading which I told him so when Rob PM'd me asking if I cared to comment primarily based on the many discussions we have had together on the subject of our WWI war walks and the war on the Western front.

Subsequently, my posts on his thread have attempted to be neither a polemic in an unjustified attack upon, nor a defence of Haig's reputation. I was taught many years ago that if anyone wants to micro-study a war of over a hundred years lapse one must examine the historical facts and draw their own conclusions based on these known facts. I have tried to do this in our subsequent discussions on this very controversial figure. But let me repeat for the umpteenth time I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE MOMENT THAT HAIG WAS A DELIBERATE MURDERER/BUTCHER OF THOUSANDS OF ALLIED SOLDIERS. But if he had been relieved of command following his Somme debacle (which I firmly believe he should have been) Passchandaele would not/may not have occurred. But adversely I also don't know that because my statement is purely speculative-perhaps some other disastrous campaign associated with the name of another inept British general perhaps unknown to us today would consequently be the title of Rob's thread.

Louis's call for evidence of the late 1918 Allied victories is also an interesting point. In 1914 Haig was full of anxiety that Britain was totally unprepared for war (we most definitely were completely unprepared) but from the very start of hostilities there is an abundance of evidence that Haig rather than being the perpetual optimist of legend was anything but. He proved to be a nervous-almost battle shy corps commander in the intial weeks of campaigning. But his be-setting sins of 1916-17 which we are mainly discussing here was his over confidence in his strategy and his total underating of his enemy. By the end of 1917 the evident failure of his plans, combined with an almost complete lack of faith in his allies made him doubt the realism of pursuing a complete victory.

While he was- and would remain so- keen to retain his command at almost any price he became in the early months of 1918 an advocate of a compromise peace with the Germans. His staff officers wrote in their diaries and logs such statements as

the C in C appears very shaken......somewhat confused....subject to mood swings........oscillitating in his strategic judgements.....at times almost willing to abandon the pursuit of a clear cut decisive victory.

All the above completely understandable indicating a man very close to the edge after three years of losing a complete generation of Allied soldiers with hardly any significant ground gained. His confidence in the Allies capacity to defeat Germany decisively fluctuated greatly during the course of 1918 even after following a string of Allied victories. In mid October until a few days before the Armistice was signed-and when the German army was at the point of collapse-Haig was arguing with Lloyd George's War Cabinet that Germany must be offered generous terms if the fighting were to end. In these last few weeks he was, in effect, and perhaps not realising almost playing down the impact and significance of the victories his own army was actually achieving.

Yes indeed a very complex and very controversial figure in British military history-but I believe he was simply a Colonial cavalry officer thrust into the first "modern" conflict who did not possess the military intellect needed to penetrate the fog of war.

Reb

 

[Rob]

Good to see you don't agree with the Butcher tag Bob, never agreed with that. Also I think it takes away from your side of the discussion,his incompetence.

And of course we must remember one other thing,if Haig had ben replaced after the Somme there is nothing to say another of his ilk would not been given the job of shifting the Germans from that ridge the following year,it may have been done differently,it may have cost fewer lives, but with the influence of those called 'Westerners' it would most probably still been done.

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

One thing to be born in mind, and remember to view it without hindsight, is the tasks set and the assets available to achieve them. Haig had artillery and men. The tasks he was asked for was to win victories. The objectives were entrenched protected by wire. Early attempts failed, the next step would be to plan a larger attack, use more artillery, make a larger bombardment, use more men. If the front line could be breached the enemies back areas would be vulnerable, he would be forced to retreat and if hotly pursued the retreat could be forced into a rout. Basically this was always the plan, to break the line. Haig cannot really be blamed for viewing new weapons with scepticism, after all the Allied experiments with gas had been disastrous, and the tanks, when introduced, were unproven. The Somme was a disaster mainly because of the depth of the German bunkers which allowed so many of their machine gunners to survive the terrific barrage. There are no excuses for Paschendale which was just horrendous. But broadly speaking Haig fought the war in the best way he knew using the assets he had. To us with our experience of modern war much seems ameuterish but we are looking back nearly 100 years. The title of this thread is misleading. Haig was no murderer, anymore than any military commander who has to put his men in harm's way. He made mistakes, under estimated some things and over estimated others but under no circumstances deliberately killed his men. Every military plan includes an estimate of casualties, very few of them are 100% accurate.

I wouldn't say he was a murderer, just a really slow learner, which is never a good thing in a military commander.

 

[Mitch]

Thing is though if we are talking about slow learners then we only have to fast forward a few years and see that tactics from the first wordl war were still uppermost in many allied generals minds. The only innovators were the germans and proven by their blitzkreig. Singling out one specific commander has been very interesting as a debate however, one commander cannot be solely held accountable for the failures of the entire campaign IMO.

Murderer?... No. slow to learn?... For me, with the transformation of the british army and the manner in which, warfare changed beyond all recognition almost overnight needs to be addressed so, for me, that is also, debatable. as I said in one of my first posts here when you take into account the whole context of era, politics etc then it makes it harder to jump in with a definitive.

We have the advantage of sitting comfortably in our homes with new doctrines on acceptable and unacceptable conduct in warfare and share on the whole socio/political and economic conditions totally different to that time and, however hard we try we cannot fully, without being subjective, opine on a subject of this nature. The answers may be different if we could
Mitch

I wouldn't say he was a murderer, just a really slow learner, which is never a good thing in a military commander.

 

[Rob]

Thing is though if we are talking about slow learners then we only have to fast forward a few years and see that tactics from the first wordl war were still uppermost in many allied generals minds. The only innovators were the germans and proven by their blitzkreig. Singling out one specific commander has been very interesting as a debate however, one commander cannot be solely held accountable for the failures of the entire campaign IMO.

Murderer?... No. slow to learn?... For me, with the transformation of the british army and the manner in which, warfare changed beyond all recognition almost overnight needs to be addressed so, for me, that is also, debatable. as I said in one of my first posts here when you take into account the whole context of era, politics etc then it makes it harder to jump in with a definitive.

We have the advantage of sitting comfortably in our homes with new doctrines on acceptable and unacceptable conduct in warfare and share on the whole socio/political and economic conditions totally different to that time and, however hard we try we cannot fully, without being subjective, opine on a subject of this nature. The answers may be different if we could
Mitch

Well said Mitch.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Well said Mitch.

Rob

Rob

Not wanting to labour the point but I don't agree that it's well said as there is an important factor missing that when introduced into the equation makes it easier to draw a conclusion. This whole argument of whether Haig was a blunderer or misjudged has been raging for decades and one particular factor continues to fuel the debate. The whole war was a debacle with every army involved losing thousands of men on the battlefield but there is a significant difference between the actions taken by the French; German and British war cabinets following the major disasters.

Joffre was replaced in 1916 by Nivelle
Nivelle was replaced in 1917 by Petain
Falkenhayn was replaced in 1916 by Hindenberg/Ludendorff

And Haig? Well he appeared to be unassailable and was never sacked and that I believe is the crux of why his character still takes all the flak today.

I have read a multitude of reasons political/socio/military et al by so-called experts on why he wasn't replaced after the Somme but the reasons get a little more pathetic after Haig delivered a repeat performance at Passchendaele one year later. Victorian/Edwardian pre-war army and pre-war officer corps was based on privilege with the hierarchy based on self preservation and preserving individual reputation. That is a historical fact and I dont need to sit in an armchair and contemplate that.

Debating one man's war and blaming him for all the casualties incurred as in this case is a total nonsense and Haig does not deserve the appelation of "butcher" but the fact that he survived where all of his opposite numbers were replaced unfortunately leaves him front and centre for eternal criticism regardless of his victories during the last hundred days of 1918.

Bob

 

[Rob]

Absolutely Bob, and as he wouldn't go and couldn't be shifted he does have to take the flak, no doubting that. But my point is regarding your last line in your post. To me it does seem that people are so transfixed with the horror of those two battles (which is understandable when one looks at the facts) that they simply are not interested in what happened in the latter days of the war, so they look at Haig and think of the Somme or Passchendaele, but you have to look at the whole thing Bob to get a true perspective of the man. I'm just asking folk to look at all angles and be prepared to be open minded enough to perhaps question the brilliantly funny but absurd Black Adder goes forth type stereotype. Asking questions of History is fascinating Bob


I'm thinking of this poll Bob;

If you had to choose where would you be?. First day of the Somme or below decks on the Bucentaure when Victory went past her patio doors??!!

(That was a joke by the way guys,no more polls)

Rob