Last of Fromelles burials today 94 years on (2 Viewers)

[Louis Badolato]

Tanks,recon, all of that was but nothing in the slurry of Passchendaele,the mud was so deep even artillery was nullified, Haig was tasked with shifting the Germans off that ridge, the Germans of course were on foreign soil and as a result had to be moved by force,facts is facts however unpleasant it was only ever going to be achieved one way, I doubt any of us could have done any better.

Donkey's is also an insult to many of the officer class who did a **** fine job in horrendous conditions.

Rob

Rob,

I certainly mean no offense to the line officers who actually suffered in the trenches. My donkeys reference is aimed at the generals and their staffs.

Your statement concerning "the slurry of Passchendaele,the mud was so deep even artillery was nullified" I think proves my point. You may be absolutely right that there was no way to get the Germans off that ridge under those conditions. So a general with half a clue rearranges the battle, chooses better ground, and attacks where his advantages, like tanks and air power, give him the chance to succeed.

You stated that none of us could do a better job than Haig did at Passchendaele. I think that nothing could be further than the truth. If I am the commander and chief of the BEF, and some octogenarian French general, applying tactics that went out with Napoleon, asks my to attack at Passchendaele, I tell him to go spit. I politely inform him that it is not on. That if clearing that ridge is necessary to an attack he wants to launch, he will have to clear it himself, or come up with a new plan of attack. I am not a general, and have never had the honor of serving in the armed forces, but I think I just tactically and strategically did a better job than Haig. I saved tens of thousands of British troops to fight another day, instead of throwing their lives away when Haig had to know that there was no chance at success.

Ask yourself what would Bill Slim have done under those circumstances? Or even Montgomery (who was far from my favorite general, but who certainly understood that it was best to preserve his own men's lives by only attacking when there was a chance of success)? I am certain that neither would have launched the attack into that bog. Which is why they deserve to have statues dedicated to their memory, while Haig does not.

 

[Mitch]

I think some of the tags attached to Haig et al as commanders in WWI are a bit harsh. Its fine to sit after all of this time and, with hindsight say, this or that was murder. This is the difficulty in using legal issues in connection with war in some circumstances.

Again, the discussions need to reflect the political and societal times and, bring in the class system and the respect held for ones country and, the belief that going of to war was seen as ones duty on several levels.

I am sure without these issues its easy to say that troops were just sent into the fray without care or concern. Many officers accounts that I have read including diaries real life interveiws etc showed graet concern for the men under their command. Warfare IMO had exploded with new technologies and, heavy bombardment on a previously never before scale was used and believed to hold the key to success.

I think what our high command suffered from was an inability to see the fluidity of a battlefield and, believed their tactics to be correct at the time. This for me, is completely different to having no concern for the welfare of troops and murdering them in futile attacks.

The lack of military knowledge was not restricted to the English but all nations. The Germans used different tactics the stormtrooper on the eastern front but, a tactic which, should have won WWI for them failed on the western front.

Lets not forget that at least we learned from our initial errors the french still used similar tactics until their demise in WWII.

I think an inability,linked to some of the points I made in the first few paragraphs, to see what modern warfare was about caused errors not pig headed evil stuborness from one man IMO
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I certainly mean no offense to the line officers who actually suffered in the trenches. My donkeys reference is aimed at the generals and their staffs.

Your statement concerning "the slurry of Passchendaele,the mud was so deep even artillery was nullified" I think proves my point. You may be absolutely right that there was no way to get the Germans off that ridge under those conditions. So a general with half a clue rearranges the battle, chooses better ground, and attacks where his advantages, like tanks and air power, give him the chance to succeed.

You stated that none of us could do a better job than Haig did at Passchendaele. I think that nothing could be further than the truth. If I am the commander and chief of the BEF, and some octogenarian French general, applying tactics that went out with Napoleon, asks my to attack at Passchendaele, I tell him to go spit. I politely inform him that it is not on. That if clearing that ridge is necessary to an attack he wants to launch, he will have to clear it himself, or come up with a new plan of attack. I am not a general, and have never had the honor of serving in the armed forces, but I think I just tactically and strategically did a better job than Haig. I saved tens of thousands of British troops to fight another day, instead of throwing their lives away when Haig had to know that there was no chance at success.

Ask yourself what would Bill Slim have done under those circumstances? Or even Montgomery (who was far from my favorite general, but who certainly understood that it was best to preserve his own men's lives by only attacking when there was a chance of success)? I am certain that neither would have launched the attack into that bog. Which is why they deserve to have statues dedicated to their memory, while Haig does not.

Here you raise a good point Louis, better ground?. Trouble is there was none,and the salient was being pounded from three directions including the ridge,the Brits could just not sit there and take it and the whole idea was to drive them off the ridge and clear the Belgian ports.

And I ask you Louis, if you had indeed been in charge and had refused to attack at Passchendaele, in the face of pressure from the French (who having parts of their country occupied were putting huge pressure on Haig),the British government and people wanting a victory, what do you think would have happened?.My friend within a week you would have been on the first boat to Dover with a special commision as head of security at Edingburgh Castle. Refusal to obey or telling the French to go swing was not an option for Haig he had to go ahead.

And if we'd shot him as you suggested,we may not have won the war with that string of victories Bob mentioned, and maybe millions more would have died.

I realise you are no fan of his as many are not, but since the nineties opinions have moved away from the more ' Killer killer killler' type description and look at what he achieved as well, its only fair mate.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

If I can intervene here in a very mild way. Rob, I think you're taking it too personally because he's British and I think you feel how dare you criticize one of our generals. However, if criticism is due, it shouldn't matter the nationality. America has had poor generals itself and I don't believe we've been loath to accept criticism if it's warranted.

Let's also not forget this is history and these men have been dead lo these many years.

 

[trooper]

I think you are off base here, General Jazz, Rob is not blindly defending Haig because he was British. He is merely taking the attitude that much of the criticism is biased and unfair and presenting the alternative view. Let us face it, if the lurid stories of the staff always whooping it up in chataux far behind the lines was 100% true how come so many red tabs were killed? In the front line by the way, before some one says they died of alcoholic poisoning. Rob is putting up a good discussion. Leave him alone.

 

[jazzeum]

Maybe so Trooper, maybe so, but would he be as excised if we were talking about a French general. I think not

 

[OzDigger]

Rob,

I am certain that Haig did many good things for his troops after the war, and that many of his men held him in high esteem as a result.

The question I would put to you is, did, as every history of the battle I have encountered indicates, Haig and his staff know that shelling had destroyed the drainage in the area, and the ground was so impassable that horses were actually sinking in the bog and drowning? If he knew of the fact that the fields were virtually impassable, sending those men over the top is not merely refusing to learn from the mistakes of the Somme, it is launching an attack he knew had zero chance of success in order to save his job.

If this is true - and you would have better access to British Army intelligence reports than I would - I would have to ask you, how does sending men over the top into that bog to die in the tens of thousands constitute anything but depraved indifference to human life?

I don't know about English criminal law, but in the United States, included under second degree Murder is bringing about the death of one or more persons due to depraved indifference to human life. This is defined as intentionally committing an act which is not intended to cause the death of any specific person or persons, but which the person committing the act knows has a high probability of causing one or more persons to die.

I know I am going to be unpopular for saying this, but to me Haig should have been executed due to his depraved indifference for the lives of his troops, in the same way that MacArthur should have been executed for directly disobeying the lawful commands of Truman, his commander in chief, during the Korean War, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of American troops.

Louis, I couldn't agree more, and to think that war started largely because of the assassination of two members of a monarchy.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Here you raise a good point Louis, better ground?. Trouble is there was none,and the salient was being pounded from three directions including the ridge,the Brits could just not sit there and take it and the whole idea was to drive them off the ridge and clear the Belgian ports.

And I ask you Louis, if you had indeed been in charge and had refused to attack at Passchendaele, in the face of pressure from the French (who having parts of their country occupied were putting huge pressure on Haig),the British government and people wanting a victory, what do you think would have happened?.My friend within a week you would have been on the first boat to Dover with a special commision as head of security at Edingburgh Castle. Refusal to obey or telling the French to go swing was not an option for Haig he had to go ahead.

And if we'd shot him as you suggested,we may not have won the war with that string of victories Bob mentioned, and maybe millions more would have died.

I realise you are no fan of his as many are not, but since the nineties opinions have moved away from the more ' Killer killer killler' type description and look at what he achieved as well, its only fair mate.

Rob

Rob,

Again you make my point for me. If the French are pressuring you to waste the lives of tens of thousands of the troops under your command, and you decide to waste the lives and launch the attack because you don't want to be sacked, you are not fit to command. I know that I would publically resign before I got even a single person under my command killed when I thought the plan of attack was impossible.

And no matter what your plan of attack is, the first question any leader in the military, or in any other venture like business or the law has to ask is "is there a reasonable chance of success?" I would be a pretty poor appellate lawyer if, after reviewing a file and doing my due dilligence, I did not tell the attorney hiring me to drop an appeal he has no realistic chance of winning. Many times these attorneys tell me the importance of the underlying case, but I always tell them the same thing: it is foolish to waste the client's money paying an appellate printer thousands to prepare the record, and then pay me thousands more to brief and argue the appeal, when you just can't win, and are throwing good assets after bad. More than once the attorney fired me and went with another appellate attorney who was willing to espouse a losing argument. Not a single one of these attorneys ended up winning when I told them they could not.

I would hope that a general, whose assets are men, would do at least as much to conserve these assets - the lives of thousands of brave young men. Maybe a public refusal might get you sacked, but maybe public outrage at your sacking prevents the attack and saves those lives anyway.

And frankly, I could care less what revisionists in the 1990's have to say about Haig and the French fools he was in bed with. Considering that their tactics caused the only large scale revolt by troops against their generals in modern history (the French troops uprising against the idiotic French high command), I would say the actions of their troops at the time consitute a far more accurate assessment of the Allied high command in WWI.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, I couldn't agree more, and to think that war started largely because of the assassination of two members of a monarchy.

Matt,

Don't even get me started on why WWI was fought. The best I can make of it, Queen Victoria's grandchildren decided to have a pissing match, and as a result, an entire generation of young men died. There was no right or wrong, no good or evil, just a bunch of monarchs and politicos deciding "we haven't had a good war here in Europe proper since 1815 - let's see whose army is tougher, after all, it will be over by Christmas." As much as I rip the generals, the politicians behind the slaughter are even more culpable in my eyes.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Matt,

Don't even get me started on why WWI was fought. The best I can make of it, Queen Victoria's grandchildren decided to have a pissing match, and as a result, an entire generation of young men died. There was no right or wrong, no good or evil, just a bunch of monarchs and politicos deciding "we haven't had a good war here in Europe proper since 1815 - let's see whose army is tougher, after all, it will be over by Christmas." As much as I rip the generals, the politicians behind the slaughter are even more culpable in my eyes.

Ain't that the truth!

Regards,
Vick

 

[OzDigger]

Matt,

Don't even get me started on why WWI was fought. The best I can make of it, Queen Victoria's grandchildren decided to have a pissing match, and as a result, an entire generation of young men died. There was no right or wrong, no good or evil, just a bunch of monarchs and politicos deciding "we haven't had a good war here in Europe proper since 1815 - let's see whose army is tougher, after all, it will be over by Christmas." As much as I rip the generals, the politicians behind the slaughter are even more culpable in my eyes.

True that, and of course the results of WWI gave Hitler a platform for his beliefs, many of which stemmed from Victorian racist beliefs.

 

[trooper]

Have been following this thread with interest and there are many good points being made on both sides. However, Louis, I don't think you can compare a military operation in the same way as a court case. You prepare your case based on a passed event with evidence and paperwork, look to see where you can gain an advantage by querying procedure and get a fair idea of what you can expect. A military operation is more like a car journey, you know where you want to go, you have decided on a route, you have checked the vehicle for reliability, petrol and oil. But you cannot foresee the odd puncture, traffic jam or adverse weather condition. No military plan in history has gone exactly to plan, but they all start with the assumption of success. It is generally thought that the military command decide where to fight. To a great extent the War Cabinets of each nation direct the large scheme according to the political needs of the moment, and you are quite right to villify them. The end result is that the soldiers fight the wars the politicians start and have to make the best of a bad job.

 

[Rob]

If I can intervene here in a very mild way. Rob, I think you're taking it too personally because he's British and I think you feel how dare you criticize one of our generals. However, if criticism is due, it shouldn't matter the nationality. America has had poor generals itself and I don't believe we've been loath to accept criticism if it's warranted.

Let's also not forget this is history and these men have been dead lo these many years.

Brad, Alan is correct here my friend, you are way off base. The idea of me thinking 'How dare you insult our generals' is frankly plain wrong and I kind of hoped you'd give me credit for a bit more intelligence than that. This discussion has nothing to do with nationality in any way at all, this is about my point of view after studying and visiting the Western front for over thirty years.The trouble is Brad, now you've suggested the nationality thing people will read this, see the Union Jack in my posts and put two and two together,so I'll make this my last post on this.

I don't think me and Louis will agree on this. For me Louis is concentrating on the emotional side of things, with his repeated statements of Haig being happy to slaughter thousands to save his job and not caring about his men. He is looking at the battles from a modern perspective and shrugs off the pressure Haig was under from all sides as if it was 'Bad day at work' type of pressure, we may all be armchair generals but not one of us can have ever been under such pressure. We are talking the pressure of nations,governments,Royalty etc. The idea that Haig could just tell the French our ally in a terrible conflict to get lost in such a glib way is unrealistic.

There is also still the question of if not Paschendaele ridge,where?. And it most certainly is not all about the French either. The allies in their trenches in and around the Ypres Salient were suffering casualties on a daily basis from artillery fire, draining men and morale. The Brits sure as hell wanted the Germans off that bloody ridge.

I think Louis intense dislike of Haig comes from the totally understandable point of view of sympathy for the fallen that we all share, however it can blind one from the facts especially in WW1. He imagines right from the start that Haig had no expectation of success and planned to let tens of thousands die for no reason, this I am afraid is laughable, whatever you think of him Haig was a proffesional soldier with a good deal of experience.His planning and changing of those plans for both the Somme and Passchendaele are well documented.

Also Louis has written off Haig because of his failures and has not mentioned is huge role in the string of victories enjoyed by the British towards the end of the war,this is a glaring hole in his argument,Haig was a human being with many faults and some strengths, to ignore the victories is not to understand the full picture of that war and that era.

Haig made many mistakes and had many faults, but the idea he was some sort of deliberate mass murderer who sent men off to die with no thought or planning is plain wrong and an insult in my view.

I also think we should all be able to post threads without being shouted down,I believe its valid to put another point of view to the 'accepted' one without facing a barrage of critics,this has happened twice in the last twenty four hours to me. .


Rob

 

[Northgate Woods]

Gentlemen,
Louis mate, in all of our discussion when in the US, a don't remember you mentioning any prior military service, but no matter, I would serve under you any time. Good points made by both sides of this arguement.
The First World War took a great turn when the five Aussie divisions were taken out of Gough's hands and placed under command of General Sir John Monash. His meticulous planning of air, artillery, armour, resupply, infantry and medical casevac in conjunction with Sir Arthur Currie's Canadians on one flank and Black Jack Pershing's doughboys on the other flank was the turning point of the War. A check of the battles of Hamel, Amiens and onwards will prove that all three Commanders had a great respect for their soldiers and human life.
I suppose I can be considered bias but if you compare the Palestine campaign where the Aussie Lighthorse were under their own commander Sir Harry Chauvel the results show out easily. Different type of battlefield you may say but planning, logistics and tactics still apply.
During my two years of Officer training, we studied all of the battles of the first and second world war, not for who won or lost but reviewing the mistakes made and the lessons that could be learnt. It opened my eyes widely on the seven "P" (prior, preparation & planning, prevent, piss, poor, performance).
Cheers Howard

 

[OzDigger]

Gentlemen,
Louis mate, in all of our discussion when in the US, a don't remember you mentioning any prior military service, but no matter, I would serve under you any time. Good points made by both sides of this arguement.
The First World War took a great turn when the five Aussie divisions were taken out of Gough's hands and placed under command of General Sir John Monash. His meticulous planning of air, artillery, armour, resupply, infantry and medical casevac in conjunction with Sir Arthur Currie's Canadians on one flank and Black Jack Pershing's doughboys on the other flank was the turning point of the War. A check of the battles of Hamel, Amiens and onwards will prove that all three Commanders had a great respect for their soldiers and human life.
I suppose I can be considered bias but if you compare the Palestine campaign where the Aussie Lighthorse were under their own commander Sir Harry Chauvel the results show out easily. Different type of battlefield you may say but planning, logistics and tactics still apply.
During my two years of Officer training, we studied all of the battles of the first and second world war, not for who won or lost but reviewing the mistakes made and the lessons that could be learnt. It opened my eyes widely on the seven "P" (prior, preparation & planning, prevent, piss, poor, performance).
Cheers Howard

Great post Howard.

 

[Rob]

Gentlemen,
Louis mate, in all of our discussion when in the US, a don't remember you mentioning any prior military service, but no matter, I would serve under you any time. Good points made by both sides of this arguement.
The First World War took a great turn when the five Aussie divisions were taken out of Gough's hands and placed under command of General Sir John Monash. His meticulous planning of air, artillery, armour, resupply, infantry and medical casevac in conjunction with Sir Arthur Currie's Canadians on one flank and Black Jack Pershing's doughboys on the other flank was the turning point of the War. A check of the battles of Hamel, Amiens and onwards will prove that all three Commanders had a great respect for their soldiers and human life.
I suppose I can be considered bias but if you compare the Palestine campaign where the Aussie Lighthorse were under their own commander Sir Harry Chauvel the results show out easily. Different type of battlefield you may say but planning, logistics and tactics still apply.
During my two years of Officer training, we studied all of the battles of the first and second world war, not for who won or lost but reviewing the mistakes made and the lessons that could be learnt. It opened my eyes widely on the seven "P" (prior, preparation & planning, prevent, piss, poor, performance).
Cheers Howard

Not just Aussies and Canucks either,the British 18th Eastern div went in at Amien too. And of course refusing Foch's demand to continue Amien the maligned Mr Haig planned the second battle of the Somme with British,Canadian and Aussie troops that was a complete success driving the Germans back some 34 miles starting on 21st August of that year.

By continual fighting and capturing of large numbers of prisoners Haig's troops forced the Germans back to the starting point of their Spring offensive by 2nd September.

Haig remained very popular as was seen by the hige turn out for his funeral of public and veterans, General John Pershing even described him as ' The man who won the war', although obviously not for first Somme or Passchendaele this does fit for the last hundred days.

Rob

 

[trooper]

One minor point, Louis, re-reading your earlier posts I note you wanted MacArthur executed for disobeying orders, and Haig executed for obeying them. We know you are a lawyer,(but we will forgive you 'cos you're a nice chap really), but how can this view be correct? To execute them both for the losses incurred might be argued but who is more in the wrong, he who disobeys or he who obeys?

 

[Louis Badolato]

Have been following this thread with interest and there are many good points being made on both sides. However, Louis, I don't think you can compare a military operation in the same way as a court case. You prepare your case based on a passed event with evidence and paperwork, look to see where you can gain an advantage by querying procedure and get a fair idea of what you can expect. A military operation is more like a car journey, you know where you want to go, you have decided on a route, you have checked the vehicle for reliability, petrol and oil. But you cannot foresee the odd puncture, traffic jam or adverse weather condition. No military plan in history has gone exactly to plan, but they all start with the assumption of success. It is generally thought that the military command decide where to fight. To a great extent the War Cabinets of each nation direct the large scheme according to the political needs of the moment, and you are quite right to villify them. The end result is that the soldiers fight the wars the politicians start and have to make the best of a bad job.

Trooper,

You have made an excellent point, and I absolutely conceed that military planning has far more unforseen circumstances than the average court case, so perhaps I am making a poor analogy. You are also correct that for the most part politicians cause the problems and the military is expected to solve them. I absolutely hold the politicians behind WWI primarily responible for its horrors.

I do, however, still believe that certain command decision, including Haig's at Passchendaele, were made with the knowledge that there was virtually no chance of the attack succeeding. I could be wrong, but every source I have read on the subject has unequivocally stated that Haig was fully briefed on the impossible conditions prevailing on that battlefield. The sources I read, including an excellent article in Military History Magazine about 4 years ago indicated that the attack was made because Haig knew his friends in high places could no longer prevent his being replaced unless he could declare a victory. Assuming, just for the sake of argument that these facts are true (again, I wasn't born until 50 years later, so there is no way I could know whether the accounts I have read are accurate), it would appear that Haig's launch of that attack was a self serving waste of his men's lives. Perhaps it isn't true, because if it was true, I can't imagine why one of the survivors of that attack, did not put a bullet in his head after the war.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Gentlemen,
Louis mate, in all of our discussion when in the US, a don't remember you mentioning any prior military service, but no matter, I would serve under you any time. Good points made by both sides of this arguement.
The First World War took a great turn when the five Aussie divisions were taken out of Gough's hands and placed under command of General Sir John Monash. His meticulous planning of air, artillery, armour, resupply, infantry and medical casevac in conjunction with Sir Arthur Currie's Canadians on one flank and Black Jack Pershing's doughboys on the other flank was the turning point of the War. A check of the battles of Hamel, Amiens and onwards will prove that all three Commanders had a great respect for their soldiers and human life.
I suppose I can be considered bias but if you compare the Palestine campaign where the Aussie Lighthorse were under their own commander Sir Harry Chauvel the results show out easily. Different type of battlefield you may say but planning, logistics and tactics still apply.
During my two years of Officer training, we studied all of the battles of the first and second world war, not for who won or lost but reviewing the mistakes made and the lessons that could be learnt. It opened my eyes widely on the seven "P" (prior, preparation & planning, prevent, piss, poor, performance).
Cheers Howard

Howard,

It is I who would be honored to serve under you at anytime. I have only held people's lives in my hand in a courtroom, when I myself was under no personal risk. You stood up to a superior officer and told him to go spit when he gave you a ridiculous order under real military circumstances, and your career suffered for it. You sir, are an officer and gentlemen whom I deeply respect.

 

[Louis Badolato]

One minor point, Louis, re-reading your earlier posts I note you wanted MacArthur executed for disobeying orders, and Haig executed for obeying them. We know you are a lawyer,(but we will forgive you 'cos you're a nice chap really), but how can this view be correct? To execute them both for the losses incurred might be argued but who is more in the wrong, he who disobeys or he who obeys?

I believe MacArthur is more culpable, because he disobeyed his supreme commander's direct order not to act, and as a result brought the entire Chinese Army into the conflict and got thousands of his troops killed.

However, as the war crime trials after WWII demonstrated, the excuse that "I was just obeying orders" did not prevent many Nazi and Imperial Japanese officers from being convicted and executed.

In the case of Haig, he was the commander of the BEF, the highest ranking official from his nation in the chain of command. As I recall, during the fall of France in WWII, Lord Gort, the British commander was "ordered" by his nominal French superiors, Generals Gamelin, Billotte and Blanchard, to make several impossible or foolish attacks, and he wisely told them it was impossible and retreated to Dunkirk, saving several hundred thousand of his troops to fight another day. Gort was nobody's idea of a great general, but he was able to stand up to the pressue under far more difficult circumstances (a complete collapse of the Allied front) than Haig was faced with.