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

[lancer]

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.

For the most part, the French debacle of WW2 can be laid at the feet of the victory in WW1. The horrendously heavy casualties of WW1 led the French to the "Maginot Mentality" that made any victory (or status quo) against a resurgent Germany, impossible. France tied herself into a "surround the enemy" system of treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia that ended up being useless when the crunch came. France's defensive strategy made assisting her partners a pipe dream. And we all know how that defensive strategy worked out. France's inability to recover from WW1 (militarily, at least) and impose her will on a recovering Germany, doomed Europe to the second war. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

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.

I think the French Generalship was worse than the Brits in WWI, but imo it's unfair to say they could have stopped Hitler in WWII. It's true that France had more and better tanks than Germany in WWII, but so did Britain. Imho it's fairer to say that the French government lost WWII, not their Generals. I know it's a fine line but true none the less.

Blitzkrieg only works in the short term where a government decides to throw in the towel when they see enemy tanks near their inland cities. If a country is prepared to fight on by using their cities as fortresses, as did the USSR, it makes them very hard to defeat in the longer term. Towards the end of WWII Hitler had this idea in mind but his mistake was to never give ground.

 

[UKReb]

For the most part, the French debacle of WW2 can be laid at the feet of the victory in WW1. The horrendously heavy casualties of WW1 led the French to the "Maginot Mentality" that made any victory (or status quo) against a resurgent Germany, impossible. France tied herself into a "surround the enemy" system of treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia that ended up being useless when the crunch came. France's defensive strategy made assisting her partners a pipe dream. And we all know how that defensive strategy worked out. France's inability to recover from WW1 (militarily, at least) and impose her will on a recovering Germany, doomed Europe to the second war. -- Al

Without wanting to prompt a Lancer appreciation society -I definitely concur with the above Al

Bob

 

[Mitch]

Thanks for the narrative took me to my research degree days. I think we can keep Blackadder where it belongs as a piece of sattire. The replacement of the french for the destruction of their army which, Lancer has kindly placed on the forum shows why they were replaced though, I only referred to the german commanders. Again, taking the whole picture the french casualties are a similar analogy to your Holocaust reference and beyond the limits of percieved understanding as they are so large a numbers. Haigs were figures which, one can easily identify with then and now and, thats why I believe that had he subsequently been replaced etc we would still have this debate and, as you say have allowed other allied generals to somewhat be resigned to the history books.

Its all about opinions and, more intelligent historians have not been able to put this to bed but, I would still say harping back to my original points why Haig was allowed to continue has to be viewed in the overall picture which, is all I stated.
Mitch


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[/QUOTE]

 

[jazzeum]

I'm sorry if I derailed this thread but I don't see how you can really lay the blame on the French politicians, at least completely. The French had the best military in the world at the time: more troops, airplanes and tanks. However, their thinking was outmoded, communications poor, strategy also poor and very slow to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they also should have been able to stop the Germans as the Germans gambled everything and won. It should also be mentioned that more traditional members of the German military were opposed to Guderian's gamble, and it was only Hitler's gambling nature that allowed Guderian's gambit to go through the Ardennes proceed.

 

[UKReb]

Mitch

I'll be honest now as initially I had you down as a member of The Haig Fellowship

Oh! yes it does exist-each year a member of the Fellowship is asked to write a positive paper on Douglas Haig and present it at their annual dinner. That member is then christened Haig Fellow of the Year.

Rob has won it three years in a row but don't tell him I told you

Bob

 

[Mitch]

UKReb

No supporter or real detractor just throwing in my ten penneth worth. I was always taught to look at the whole picture and then opine. I could easily have sided one way or another and argued for that position.
Mitch

;314349]Mitch

I'll be honest now as initially I had you down as a member of The Haig Fellowship

Oh! yes it does exist-each year a member of the Fellowship is asked to write a positive paper on Douglas Haig and present it at their annual dinner. That member is then christened Haig Fellow of the Year.

Rob has won it three years in a row but don't tell him I told you

Bob[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

Without wanting to prompt a Lancer appreciation society -I definitely concur with the above Al

Bob

Thanks Bob. Like you and Rob, I am a lifelong student of WW1 in just about all aspects. Some knowledge across all lines, land, sea, air. Most of what I know (and forgotten) centers on the Westfront, but, I find all of it impossible to ignore. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

jazzeum

An inspired gamble but, as we are talking about allied generals unwilling or unable to learn the germans did it twice.
Mitch


;314345]I'm sorry if I derailed this thread but I don't see how you can really lay the blame on the French politicians, at least completely. The French had the best military in the world at the time: more troops, airplanes and tanks. However, their thinking was outmoded, communications poor, strategy also poor and very slow to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they also should have been able to stop the Germans as the Germans gambled everything and won. It should also be mentioned that more traditional members of the German military were opposed to Guderian's gamble, and it was only Hitler's gambling nature that allowed Guderian's gambit to go through the Ardennes proceed.[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

I'm sorry if I derailed this thread but I don't see how you can really lay the blame on the French politicians, at least completely. The French had the best military in the world at the time: more troops, airplanes and tanks. However, their thinking was outmoded, communications poor, strategy also poor and very slow to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they also should have been able to stop the Germans as the Germans gambled everything and won. It should also be mentioned that more traditional members of the German military were opposed to Guderian's gamble, and it was only Hitler's gambling nature that allowed Guderian's gambit to go through the Ardennes proceed.

Hi Brad. I feel the failure of the French was a total failure, top to bottom, in both political and military fields. It is my opinion that WW1 bankrupted the nation in terms that would have allowed them to halt the Germans at any given point in the German re-armament. The over-riding reason? The casualties of WW1; 1,500,000 dead, 5,000,000 total. France could not even contemplate such losses again, thus the defensive mentality and the failure to act when action might have halted Germany. Almost a "close your eyes and it will go away" line of thinking. The failure to act in inter-war years and the failure to learn new ways of war (why fix what won WW1?) were all directly related to the terrible cost of winning WW1. It was not politically or militarily possible to duplicate the 1914-18 effort. -- Al

 

[Rob]

I'm sorry if I derailed this thread but I don't see how you can really lay the blame on the French politicians, at least completely. The French had the best military in the world at the time: more troops, airplanes and tanks. However, their thinking was outmoded, communications poor, strategy also poor and very slow to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they also should have been able to stop the Germans as the Germans gambled everything and won. It should also be mentioned that more traditional members of the German military were opposed to Guderian's gamble, and it was only Hitler's gambling nature that allowed Guderian's gambit to go through the Ardennes proceed.

Brad, as long as we are all enjoying a good discussion never worry about derailing one of my threads, we've covered WW1/Blackadder/*** chatshow hosts, who knows whats next

Mitch

I'll be honest now as initially I had you down as a member of The Haig Fellowship

Oh! yes it does exist-each year a member of the Fellowship is asked to write a positive paper on Douglas Haig and present it at their annual dinner. That member is then christened Haig Fellow of the Year.

Rob has won it three years in a row but don't tell him I told you

Bob

I have to sit in the corner with the 'Haig was a loony' hat on

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

Brad, as long as we are all enjoying a good discussion never worry about derailing one of my threads, we've covered WW1/Blackadder/*** chatshow hosts, who knows whats next





I have to sit in the corner with the 'Haig was a loony' hat on

Rob

LOL - did anyone take any photos you can post

 

[OzDigger]

I'm sorry if I derailed this thread but I don't see how you can really lay the blame on the French politicians, at least completely. The French had the best military in the world at the time: more troops, airplanes and tanks. However, their thinking was outmoded, communications poor, strategy also poor and very slow to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing, they also should have been able to stop the Germans as the Germans gambled everything and won. It should also be mentioned that more traditional members of the German military were opposed to Guderian's gamble, and it was only Hitler's gambling nature that allowed Guderian's gambit to go through the Ardennes proceed.

I blame the French government for the lose against the Germans in early WWII because they surrended their country prematurely.

Btw guys. People like to beat-up on the Maginot line as being an example of France's defensive nature. Britain was lucky to have the channel as a barrier. Continental European countries were less fortunate and did need built defences, in fact Germany constructed significant defence works before WWII started.

 

[Mitch]

OZDigger....

True the seigfried line was very elaborate in some areas but, german mentality was still very much attack and, thats where the two countries differ. The French were defence minded to the extreme and, thats why the maginot line was built but, as much as this was pertinent they were to slow and politically sensitive and polite to follow it up along the belgium border. Had they done so, we may not have had the debacle in the early war. This is what I meant when I said the allies did not learn the lessons from WWI until it was too late.
Mitch

I blame the French government for the lose against the Germans in early WWII because they surrended their country prematurely.

Btw guys. People like to beat-up on the Maginot line as being an example of France's defensive nature. Britain was lucky to have the channel as a barrier. Continental European countries were less fortunate and did need built defences, in fact Germany constructed significant defence works before WWII started.

 

[lancer]

OZDigger....

True the seigfried line was very elaborate in some areas but, german mentality was still very much attack and, thats where the two countries differ. The French were defence minded to the extreme and, thats why the maginot line was built but, as much as this was pertinent they were to slow and politically sensitive and polite to follow it up along the belgium border. Had they done so, we may not have had the debacle in the early war. This is what I meant when I said the allies did not learn the lessons from WWI until it was too late.
Mitch

The French were also restricted in extending the Maginot Line by the very real problem of financing it. The additional cost was seen as prohibitive at a time when their economy was very shaky. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

lancer...

Absolutely, but I read something can't remember what at the moment where they considered the consequences of bankrupcy as less worse than being unprepared to defend against another attck should it happen. Thats rather defence minded
Mitch


;314695]The French were also restricted in extending the Maginot Line by the very real problem of financing it. The additional cost was seen as prohibitive at a time when their economy was very shaky. -- Al[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

lancer...

Absolutely, but I read something can't remember what at the moment where they considered the consequences of bankrupcy as less worse than being unprepared to defend against another attck should it happen. Thats rather defence minded
Mitch


;314695]The French were also restricted in extending the Maginot Line by the very real problem of financing it. The additional cost was seen as prohibitive at a time when their economy was very shaky. -- Al

[/QUOTE]No doubt the French made some bad miscalculations, most obviously in allowing for German offensive abilities. Part of French strategy was to depend on her Allies to help contain Germany. To that end, they took into account that by extending the Maginot Line along the Belgium border, they might be seen as excluding Belgium from Allied plans. It just wouldn't send the right message to exclude an ally from plans of defense. Belgium had to be included in Ally plans and thus, no extending of the ML. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

lancer...

Again mate no argument there. But, even when they realised nothing but action (armed) would stop the germans they belatedly began to try and rebuild the rest of the ML rather than thinking lets take the fight (with, as you say allies) to the germans. defence orientated at that time and, IMO from what I have read unimaginative minded commanders compared to the germans and, when they did try to do something positive it was way to late
Mitch

;314706][/QUOTE]No doubt the French made some bad miscalculations, most obviously in allowing for German offensive abilities. Part of French strategy was to depend on her Allies to help contain Germany. To that end, they took into account that by extending the Maginot Line along the Belgium border, they might be seen as excluding Belgium from Allied plans. It just wouldn't send the right message to exclude an ally from plans of defense. Belgium had to be included in Ally plans and thus, no extending of the ML. -- Al[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

lancer...

Again mate no argument there. But, even when they realised nothing but action (armed) would stop the germans they belatedly began to try and rebuild the rest of the ML rather than thinking lets take the fight (with, as you say allies) to the germans. defence orientated at that time and, IMO from what I have read unimaginative minded commanders compared to the germans and, when they did try to do something positive it was way to late
Mitch

;314706]

No doubt the French made some bad miscalculations, most obviously in allowing for German offensive abilities. Part of French strategy was to depend on her Allies to help contain Germany. To that end, they took into account that by extending the Maginot Line along the Belgium border, they might be seen as excluding Belgium from Allied plans. It just wouldn't send the right message to exclude an ally from plans of defense. Belgium had to be included in Ally plans and thus, no extending of the ML. -- Al[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]So true, Mitch. The irony of French strategy was that their whole system of treaties used to surround the Germans required offensive plans in order to lend help where needed (outside French borders). Their whole military was built for defensive warfare. The French tanks were very good but docturne dictated infantry support in small packets. The infantry was rather badly trained (and led) with a large portion assigned to fortress duties. The airforce was also inadequate for real offensive ops. Basically, French security was doomed, requiring offense of a defensive force. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

The French were also restricted in extending the Maginot Line by the very real problem of financing it. The additional cost was seen as prohibitive at a time when their economy was very shaky. -- Al

I'm sure authors differ on this subject but from what I have read the French did not continue the Maginot Line along the Belgium border for political reasons rather than financial problems.