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

[lancer]

I think there is another factor that may be very indicative of how Haig was performing. Casualties in the British Army, by 1918, had been hideous and had reached the point where replacements were getting harder to supply. Manpower reserves were gone. David Lloyd George had been butting heads with Haig for ages over the wasteful offensives and in 1918, George, frustrated by Haigs political pull and fear of another slaughter in the offing, started withholding replacement troops, hoping to handcuff Haig, to a certain extent. How effective this might have been in preventing further offensives is unknown because the Germans struck first in April. The "withholding" policy did effect British defensive efforts against these offensives. A perfect example of no good deed going unpunished. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

One of the problems with your analysis Rob is that you look at Haig's total record whereas Bob points out that at the time they screwed up (or shortly thereafter), the French and German generals were replaced. What you need to do is look at it at the time Haig committed his blunders. Should he have been replaced at that time? Yes. Your ability to look at the whole war some ninety years later is not an option that the politicians or the high command had at the time. You cannot excuse what he did by subsequent actions.

Too often we look at historical events from the perspective of many years later but do not put ourselves in the shoes of the decision maker as the events were unfolding.

 

[UKReb]

I think there is another factor that may be very indicative of how Haig was performing. Casualties in the British Army, by 1918, had been hideous and had reached the point where replacements were getting harder to supply. Manpower reserves were gone. David Lloyd George had been butting heads with Haig for ages over the wasteful offensives and in 1918, George, frustrated by Haigs political pull and fear of another slaughter in the offing, started withholding replacement troops, hoping to handcuff Haig, to a certain extent. How effective this might have been in preventing further offensives is unknown because the Germans struck first in April. The "withholding" policy did effect British defensive efforts against these offensives. A perfect example of no good deed going unpunished. -- Al

Good point Al and you are correct that LG did withold men when Haig asked for replacements but that was in November 1917-my point that I'm trying to make to Rob is that Haig survived through the Somme and Passchendaele which by November 1917 had ground to a halt.

With those horrendous casualties from both campaigns and only a few feet of ground gained and LG's coalition government trying to maintain the fighting needs of the navy/airforce and a workforce for shipbuilding/tank and aircraft production plus growing food for the populace one might ask what would one do as PM?

But you are also right that by witholding these replacement troops we nearly came an almighty cropper when the Germans began their spring offensive in March 1918-they literally swept the undermanned Fifth Army aside and pushed the Front on the Somme back 40 miles.

Reb

 

[Rob]

One of the problems with your analysis Rob is that you look at Haig's total record whereas Bob points out that at the time they screwed up (or shortly thereafter), the French and German generals were replaced. What you need to do is look at it at the time Haig committed his blunders. Should he have been replaced at that time? Yes. Your ability to look at the whole war some ninety years later is not an option that the politicians or the high command had at the time. You cannot excuse what he did by subsequent actions.

Too often we look at historical events from the perspective of many years later but do not put ourselves in the shoes of the decision maker as the events were unfolding.

I see the point you are making Brad, but taking it to extremes it was not down to Haig to replace himself was it?. He did the job he was given. If we are passing judgement on a guy ninety years on, surely WE DO have to look at the whole picture. To ignore his leadership in first the German advance and then the final Allied advance sounds like we are just so obsessed with the Somme and Passchendaele that the final victory under his leadership is of no importance. You also use the term 'you cannot excuse what he did' as if it were deliberate,there does not seem to be an ounce of compassion for a man under astonishing pressure that none of us have been under.

I take on board Bobs earlier post re Plumer and his bite and hold,so yes Passchendaele could have been achieved at a lower cost, but no one has convinced me that in the face of pressure from the Westerners at the time there was any other choice than that ridge.

He was a human being with faults the same as us. But I think some folk simply do not want to recognize his leadership in the final days leading us to Victory, for me he made terrible costly mistakes and yes should have been sacked, but he wasn't and went on to do a fine job in driving back the Germans and leading us to the Armistice.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Good point Al and you are correct that LG did withold men when Haig asked for replacements but that was in November 1917-my point that I'm trying to make to Rob is that Haig survived through the Somme and Passchendaele which by November 1917 had ground to a halt.

With those horrendous casualties from both campaigns and only a few feet of ground gained and LG's coalition government trying to maintain the fighting needs of the navy/airforce and a workforce for shipbuilding/tank and aircraft production plus growing food for the populace one might ask what would one do as PM?

But you are also right that by witholding these replacement troops we nearly came an almighty cropper when the Germans began their spring offensive in March 1918-they literally swept the undermanned Fifth Army aside and pushed the Front on the Somme back 40 miles.

Reb

To quote a certain British military leader, it was "A near run thing". -- Al

 

[UKReb]

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

Rob

The BlackAdder series was supposed to be comedy albeit satire but that final episode was so darn effective that I'm sure it's indelibly printed into peoples mind. "How could we have done that?" I have heard many people say and it's difficult to relay back when the like's of us amateur historians know that the truth was much worse.

One of Haig's staff was sent to the front to gather intelligence at Passchendaele when he saw the glutinous mud stretching as far as the eye could see he stated "My God surely we never asked our men to fight in that" or the story of Captain Rupert DeWinter who was court-martialed and found guilty for ordering his men to retreat during a gas-attack even though his men were not supplied with gas-masks. What do we say? It was just a comedy of errors?

A couple of years ago I was gassing with an old history professor friend of mine who triggered an interesting thought-at the time we were talking about the number of victims of the Holocaust and he said

"The human brain has difficulty in assimilating numbers associated with victims or casualties over and above a fixed number-the brain cannot or refuses to take in or digest many thousands let alone millions"

Soon after I was at a cup match at Arsenal's ground-full capacity and the tannoy blasted out that there were 60,400 in attendance-the number prompted me to undertake a 360 degree scan of the stadium-a multitude of people and yet that was almost the exact figure of the British casualties on the first day at the Somme.

Try it Rob next time you are at a football match or open air concert- it really takes your breath away.

Bob

 

[Mitch]

UKReb

Surely, you are not saying that he would not be viewed as he is should he have been either removed and placed somewhere else or sacked. The whole crux of this thread was about casualties incurred from certain battles and, from what I have read especially, about the german commanders was their removal was down to lack of advancement and military success not casualties.

I just don't see how his removal after the fact reduces the controversy and, surely one cannot do other than relate a mans actions to the events and situations as explained in my post which, he finds himself in?
Mitch

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[/QUOTE]

 

[UKReb]

UKReb

Surely, you are not saying that he would not be viewed as he is should he have been either removed and placed somewhere else or sacked. The whole crux of this thread was about casualties incurred from certain battles and, from what I have read especially, about the german commanders was their removal was down to lack of advancement and military success not casualties.

I just don't see how his removal after the fact reduces the controversy and, surely one cannot do other than relate a mans actions to the events and situations as explained in my post which, he finds himself in?
Mitch

I humbly bow to your far superior knowledge of Haig and WWI than I could ever possess

 

[Rob]

Rob

The BlackAdder series was supposed to be comedy albeit satire but that final episode was so darn effective that I'm sure it's indelibly printed into peoples mind. "How could we have done that?" I have heard many people say and it's difficult to relay back when the like's of us amateur historians know that the truth was much worse.

One of Haig's staff was sent to the front to gather intelligence at Passchendaele when he saw the glutinous mud stretching as far as the eye could see he stated "My God surely we never asked our men to fight in that" or the story of Captain Rupert DeWinter who was court-martialed and found guilty for ordering his men to retreat during a gas-attack even though his men were not supplied with gas-masks. What do we say? It was just a comedy of errors?

A couple of years ago I was gassing with an old history professor friend of mine who triggered an interesting thought-at the time we were talking about the number of victims of the Holocaust and he said

"The human brain has difficulty in assimilating numbers associated with victims or casualties over and above a fixed number-the brain cannot or refuses to take in or digest many thousands let alone millions"

Soon after I was at a cup match at Arsenal's ground-full capacity and the tannoy blasted out that there were 60,400 in attendance-the number prompted me to undertake a 360 degree scan of the stadium-a multitude of people and yet that was almost the exact figure of the British casualties on the first day at the Somme.

Try it Rob next time you are at a football match or open air concert- it really takes your breath away.

Bob

As usual my friend you make very good points.Must confess the final Blackadder scene brought a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye, never has a comedy series ended with such a brilliant,poignant scene. And I remember next day everyone one was saying the same thing and it was all over the news. I also very happily acknowledge its part in reintroducing a generation to WW1.

And yes I remember that quote about Passchendaele, what an awful awful war it was mate, terrible slaughter on both sides for it all to be repeated just twenty odd years later,criminal.

In regards to the British army its safe to say Bob the only ones who covered themselves in glory were the footsloggers who kept going forward in those god awful conditions, almost a whole generation disappeared over the top and society changed forever. Not saying I believe in Ghosts Bob but I've stood in sanctuary wood just outside Ypres as the light began to fade and the wind whistled through the trees above me, my god it was atmospheric.

Will do that next time I'm at a big crowd event,the statistics never fail to shock.

I've really enjoyed this thread,WW1 is my favourite subject and I thik we can all agree on one thing,after the Somme Haig should have been on a boat home to his Whisky making business.

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

Ahhh, Blackadder imo it's up there with Fawlty Towers and Life of Brian as my favorites of British humor. Yes I know I did say that Dad's Army was the best, but in hindsight that is in terms of scripting rather than laughs per minute. I can watch the other Three several times a month and still get a laugh out of them

As for Mr Haig, yes I think their Whisky is first class, his Generalship is not so good imho.

 

[Rob]

Ahhh, Blackadder imo it's up there with Fawlty Towers and Life of Brian as my favorites of British humor. Yes I know I did say that Dad's Army was the best, but in hindsight that is in terms of scripting rather than laughs per minute. I can watch the other Three several times a month and still get a laugh out of them

As for Mr Haig, yes I think their Whisky is first class, his Generalship is not so good imho.

Spot on. For comedy character performance its Dads Army, for laugh out loud Blackadder and Fawlty Towers.

And one other modern series stands head and shoulders above other modern shows and that is I'm Alan Partridge. A truly repellant character with no redeeming personality traits, but watching his sad life unravel is truly superb,vain,shallow,self centered he's brilliant.

And don't get me started on Whisky,Islay is a nice drop of stuff....oops there I go!

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

Spot on. For comedy character performance its Dads Army, for laugh out loud Blackadder and Fawlty Towers.

And one other modern series stands head and shoulders above other modern shows and that is I'm Alan Partridge. A truly repellant character with no redeeming personality traits, but watching his sad life unravel is truly superb,vain,shallow,self centered he's brilliant.

And don't get me started on Whisky,Islay is a nice drop of stuff....oops there I go!

Rob

Rob, I had never heard of Alan Partridge until some forum member used his avatar, who seems to be now MIA. I guess Mr Patridge's show didn't make it to Australia. But there is a Brit talk show I do watch from time to time that is compared by some *** guy that features members of the audience being ejected from a chair if they prove boring. I don't remember his name but I like his sense of irreverant humor.

 

[Rob]

Rob, I had never heard of Alan Partridge until some forum member used his avatar, who seems to be now MIA. I guess Mr Patridge's show didn't make it to Australia. But there is a Brit talk show I do watch from time to time that is compared by some *** guy that features members of the audience being ejected from a chair if they prove boring. I don't remember his name but I like his sense of irreverant humor.

Is it Alan Carr,he's quite funny.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Is it Alan Carr,he's quite funny.

Rob

Rob

I think Oz is referring to Graham Norton

Bob

 

[Mitch]

UKReb....

Now you know thats not what I meant. I was replying to your comment on what I stated as not such a good comment. I just don't believe that you can isolate one thing from history and analyse it as has been done on here without everything else that goes with it. That does not make me more intelligent just allows a more in depth debate.

I do agree about the analogy about the Holocaust as Himmeler in a speech said the same thing and, probably how they got away with it for so long... sheer mind blowing numbers
Mitch

;314287]I humbly bow to your far superior knowledge of Haig and WWI than I could ever possess[/QUOTE]

 

[Rob]

Rob

I think Oz is referring to Graham Norton

Bob

Wrong host Bob!

Rob

 

[lancer]

Great thread on a most interesting subject. I would like to interject, that as bad as British generalship was, French generalship was worse. Now, I am referring to Joffre and Nivelle specifically, as the Army commanders. Joffre was CO until late 1916 when he was promoted to Marshal and "retired" to be replaced by Nivelle until May 1917 when Petain replaced him and took the French Army in a new direction. Joffre and the French strategy of the offensive (in particular, Joffre's "nibbling" offensives of 1915) cost the French some 754,000 men in 1914; 1,549,000 men in 1915; and somewhere around another 900,000 men in 1916, left the French government desperate. They kicked Joffre upstairs and brought in Nivelle whose charm and self-confident claim that he had the secret to victory, completely won over the support for him within the French government. The complete failure of the April 1917 French offensive (and another 130,000+ casualties in 3 weeks) were responsible for the mutinies that nearly destroyed the French Army. Petain was then brought in to save the situation, which he managed to do. Joffre and Nivelle almost brought defeat to the French. Joffre did have the honor of saving France at the Marne (possibly the most important victory of the war until the final victory itself) but must also bear the disgrace of 1915 qnd being caught asleep at the switch by the Germans at Verdun. All in all, until Petain took over, the French nation was ill-served by her commanding generals. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

Rob

I think Oz is referring to Graham Norton

Bob

Yeah Bob, that's the guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEy4_nNKTnc&feature=related

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graham_Norton_Show

 

[jazzeum]

the French nation was ill-served by her commanding generals. -- Al

Gee, that hasn't happened to often has it. Wonder which one was worse, WWI or II. I suppose the latter since they could have stopped Hitler and spared the world the misery that followed.

 

[UKReb]

UKReb....

Now you know thats not what I meant. I was replying to your comment on what I stated as not such a good comment. I just don't believe that you can isolate one thing from history and analyse it as has been done on here without everything else that goes with it. That does not make me more intelligent just allows a more in depth debate.

I do agree about the analogy about the Holocaust as Himmeler in a speech said the same thing and, probably how they got away with it for so long... sheer mind blowing numbers
Mitch

;314287]I humbly bow to your far superior knowledge of Haig and WWI than I could ever possess

[/QUOTE]

Correlation= a statistic measuring the degree of correlation between two variables.

The variables in this discussion could be lack of advance and total casualties-to semi quote BlackAdder "Haig did no more than advance his drinks cabinet six inches further forward towards Berlin during 1916/17. So why differentiate?

Both Joffre & Nivelle were replaced not only because they could not advance but also because they came close to destroying the whole French army with casualty figures that paled Haig's debacles of the Somme & Passchandaele almost into insignificance. Yes I do believe that if Haig had been replaced at the end of 1916 we would not be discussing him here on the forum exactly the same as Joffre/Nivelle/Falkenheyn have almost disappeared into the history books and that is why I did not agree with your post.

Reb