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

[OzDigger]

All military plans are made with the assumption of success despite the risks involved. When they succeed, as MacArthur at Inchon, they are hailed as brilliant. When they fail the organisers are blamed as incompetent. But the plans are made with a purpose, capture or recapture and hold a position, pinch out a salient, prevent the enemies access to a target etc. The only cases I am aware of where this wasn't applied was in Vietnam where hundreds of brave young Americans, God rest them all, were sent repeatedly to capture a hill or position only to abandon it as soon as it was taken, allowing the NVA or VC to re-occupy it with no effort. That truly was futile.

Why introduce a guerilla war such as the Vietnam conflict into a discussion about WWI?

 

[Mitch]

Ozdigger..

It was my post which brought up Vietnam as, the crux of the post was changed somewhat from the remembrance of those soldiers onto Haig being a murderer and, war criminal so, I asked the US posters about whether generals and politicians should in the US have faced the same accusations for this debacle.
Mitch

Why introduce a guerilla war such as the Vietnam conflict into a discussion about WWI?

 

[aujj65]

Why introduce a guerilla war such as the Vietnam conflict into a discussion about WWI?

Well we’ve had the Boer War and the Korean War already involved in this thread so why not?

Jeff

 

[OzDigger]

Ozdigger..

It was my post which brought up Vietnam as, the crux of the post was changed somewhat from the remembrance of those soldiers onto Haig being a murderer and, war criminal so, I asked the US posters about whether generals and politicians should in the US have faced the same accusations for this debacle.
Mitch

I believe your orginal question was answered by Louis. Personally I think it would have been more relevant to seek a response regarding the American Generalship in WWI rather than a later and very different conflict.

 

[Mitch]

Maybe so, however, the debate was fluid and moved quickly away from the original title and, opened up all era's when discussing the rights or wrongs of labelling certain acts as war crimes. so, not fully answered as such, but, my point was that Haig, Patton, Monty, Mcarthur et al were no more war criminals or murderers than those who cost so many lives in vietnam or, say the recent conflicts in Afghan or Iraq.
Mitch

I believe your orginal question was answered by Louis. Personally I think it would have been more relevant to seek a response regarding the American Generalship in WWI rather than a later and very different conflict.

 

[OzDigger]

Maybe so, however, the debate was fluid and moved quickly away from the original title and, opened up all era's when discussing the rights or wrongs of labelling certain acts as war crimes. so, not fully answered as such, but, my point was that Haig, Patton, Monty, Mcarthur et al were no more war criminals or murderers than those who cost so many lives in vietnam or, say the recent conflicts in Afghan or Iraq.
Mitch

My opinion is that the actions of Haig and certain other British Generals in WWI were far worse than the later commanders and conflicts you mentioned because they new what the consequence would be, yet continued regardless. It is not gambling when you know the result.

 

[Mitch]

I have read quite a bit about Haig but, never read anywhere where he knew the outcome of a battle as you indicate. I suppose in all wars you have to take into account the percentage of losses sometimes it may be less sometimes more but, I do disagree that he knew well in advance that he would lose the numbers he did. Its hindsight again which is always 20/20 and, not taking into account the period as an understanding of the actions at that specific time in question IMO
Mitch

of Haig and certain other British Generals in WWI were far worse than the later commanders and conflicts you mentioned because they new what the consequence would be, yet continued regardless. It is not gambling when you know the result.[/QUOTE]

 

[Louis Badolato]

Here is another, related question about culpability: What about the culpability of commanders for the appointment of incompetent's to command positions because they are cronies of theirs, or well connected politically. Here's an example:

Should Ike have remained the commander of the American and later Allied forces after operation Torch, where he appointed his old friend and classmate, Maj. Gen. Lloyd R. Fredendall, a complete incompetent, as the commander on the ground in North Africa? HIs buddy proceeded to spend all his time building himself a safe underground command facility 60 miles from the front, permitting the disaster of the Kasserine Pass to occur. It was only after all hell had broken loose that Ike finally canned his pal, and replaced him with Patton. Was Ike responsible for this disaster, and should he have shouldered the blame?

I think he was, and it should have cost him his job. What do you gentlemen think?

 

[Louis Badolato]

Another good example could probably be better addressed by Bob (UKREB) - all of Lincoln's appointments of politically connected incompetents as generals during the U.S. Civil War.

 

[Rob]

Thank god we can all be armchair generals and never have to put ourselves into the position of a WW1 general on the Western front, on a purely human level it must have been a pretty terrible position to be in. Also the generals Haig included had huge pressure 'from above' . Another thing to remember is that if you have a war cabinet set upon a certain advance then whoever is in command is not the main issue,they can resign,be sacked, fall into a trench or whatever, the cabinet are sure to have a replacement up their sleeve willing to do their bidding.

I always think that first day on the Somme is a lot like the sinking of the Titanic, one of those occasions where different elements come together to make it an absolute disaster.

1, Failure of Bombardment to kill enough Germans and destroy positions.
2. Failure of artillery barrage to cut wire in enough places, use of HE instead of shrapnel often blamed for this.
3. Order to advance at the slope with no running.I have read/listened to several German accounts who say the same thing, 'There were so many British that if they'd charged we wouldn't have been able to stop them'. The performance of the Ulster division that morning is proof of this.
4. Blowing of mines minutes before men went over the top, allowing Germans to recover and occupy positions.

Put these together and you have almost a generation of men slaughtered for little gain. What was the saying re the Pals Battalions ' Two years in the making, ten minutes in the destroying '.

Yes Haig should have gone after the Somme and Passchendaele is hard to forgive. There is no doubting his success and leadership he had in the last hundred days,in which as Bob said we had some of the greatest victories in British army History, but as I said to Louis yesterday, I just can't make up my mind if this forgives the slaughter of 16/17. Its something I've asked myself many times since I first started visiting these sacred fields aged 13.

So guys lets have some straight answers to the above question,yes or no???

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Not all of Lincoln's political appointments were incompetent. I believe some were decent. I don't have the names at my fingertips so I'll have to punt for now. There is actually a recent good book about the topic called, oddly enough , Lincoln's political generals.

 

[DCN1898]

Lincoln's Disappointments Tended to be in the East with the Army of the Potomac where most of the press was. The Union did pretty well in the Western theater. Arguably the two most well known Union Generals that are credited with bringing the war to a successful end were from the west. Sherman and Grant. No that they didn't have a bumpy road to travel.