Not wanting to derail the Poppy thread, and promising Johnno that I would start up a fresh one, what are people's opinions of Sir Douglas Haig, Commander in Cheif of the BEF in France 1915 - 1919. Haig is generally viewed as a butcher with no regard for the lives of his soldiers and he fed those self same soldiers in to the sausage grinders of Flanders Fields adn Norther France. However, is this a fair assesment of the man? Where his decisions all bad? Was the war of attrition essentially Haig's formular for winning the Great War? Or, as historians are now beginning to believe, was Haig a great General, without whom the nuiter Kingdom would not have been able to win the War, who held the alliance with France together through the dark days of the war, especially the great German Offensive of 1918 that so very nearly crushed the allies, and then turned this around so that in the last 100 days of WWI the British Army engaged and defeated 99 of the 197 German Divisions on the Western Front, captured nearly 190,000 prisoners and essentially broke the German will to continue the war? I grew up with the belief, handed down through the generations that Haig was the "Evil Butcher". But is this evaluation fair given the evidence? I am still trying to make my mind up, but I am leaning towards the view that his reputation as a butcher isn't necessarily all that fair. I would be very interested in your views and why you hold them. Cheers All (and thanks to you Johnno for the idea for the thread !)
He was just an old general used to a different style of warfare to the situation he was put into in, like all the old generals at that time. They were used to cavalry charges and canon, their experiance was fighting zulus and other unprofessional badly equipt armies. A good general shouldnt have a high regard for human life IMO. If he did, he would not be willing to sacrafise some men for the greater good.
I find it difficult to see how he was tactically successful when I see the huge memorial books at work detailing all the soldiers from one Pals regiment who were wiped out on the first day of the Somme. Warfare was a completely different kettle of fish in WWI, I still haven't made my mind up about Haig to be honest.I am currently reading a book about Passchendaele written by a local guy about the local soldiers who fought there.I may have a clearer idea once I finish that.None of it is easy reading though.
Just look at the result of the war and the strong of British sucesses. It definatly took him more than a long time to get to grips with the new style of warfare.
Around 300,000 casualties at the Somme though ,taking very little ground in return. I think Passchendaele was similar,although they inflicted a bit more damage on the Germans this time. There seems to have been an awful lot of in fighting between Haig and Field Marshall French, then later issues with Lloyd George. The beginning of WWI just seemed to be a big mess though so it's not really surprising there were so many casualties and such little gain for such a long time.
Thats the way world war 1 rolled, there wasnt a way to grab ground and not loose huge ammounts of men. If Haig was the only general getting lots of men killed for very little ground then he would be bad, but he wasn't. France and England argued between each other because they were all VERY patriotic back then and France and England wern't exactly buddies, we only joined the war to help BEgluim and our own interests France just ended up being our ally.
one could argue that such losses indicate not that Haig was a bad General just that he was not better than his opposite number. In principle I agree that he was not accustomed to this type of warfare - no one was. Does that excuse some of his questionable decisions? I dont know. What I do know is that I would not have wanted to be making those decisions in his stead.
I agree.I think it's really hard to look back and see it all in context to be honest.WWI was a completely new type of war ,the first one with voluntary recruits (I may be wrong here) and it was just on such a huge scale.
The entire General staff just about had apoplexy when it was suggested the model for the prosecution of WW1 should be the trench warfare of the war of northern aggression/American civil war, one even said what happened in America has no bearing on Europe.
You're kind of right. If you look back at the Napolenonic wars, one of the reasons why the British did so well was because they were volunteers and the French were largely conscripts. But can you be a true volunteer if not volunteering means starving to death or being hanged?
Hold on, It was conscript in ww1 wasnt it? Maybe not at the beggining when everyone thought it would be a laugh, but once huge ammounts of men started dying I thought they brought in conscripts?
For Britain, WW1 was the first war in which conscription occured for British Troops. "In January 1916, Parliament passed the first conscription laws (compulsory enrollment) ever passed in Britain. At first only single men and childless widowers aged 18 to 41 were called up. By 1918 compulsory service had been extended to include all men aged 18 to 51. More than 2.3 million conscripts were enlisted before the end of the war in November, 1918." Su, if you look at casualty figures for the Somme the total casualty figures for that campaign for Briatin was over 415,000, whilst the Germans lost over 650,000 troops. The first day of the Somme, the British lost 57,470 men, of which 19,240 where killed outright and 2,152 were missing in action. These figures are horrific. And Haig is judged a butcher for the Furst Day of the Somme and the Somme Campaign mainly. People see these figures and think of the complte disregard for the life of his won men that Haig had to send his troops out to die in such numbers. And this is were the pals Battalions were blooded for the first time, and where so very many of them where effectively anihilated. Bowever, Strategically Haig did not want to fight on the Somme, and did not want to fight a major campaing when the Somme started. He was forced to fight at the Somme, which was the junction of the French and British Armies for politcal reasons, and he was forced to fight earlier than he wanted to, because of the German Verdun Offensive, which was a meat grinder which is estimated to have cost France about 542,000 casualties and Germany 434,000 casualties (with an additional 25 to 30 thousand civilians). Verdun as bleeding France dry and throughout the campaing over 70% of the french Army was rotated thruogh Verdun. Haig wanted to fight further North in Flanders and later in the year when the raw troops from Kitchener's Army would have been bedded in better to the BEF. Comparing casualty figures for the two campaings Verdun and the Somme, Haig is called a Butcher, but Joffre and Falkenhayn are not! As for the numbers of casualties, the type of warfare had changed dramatically, and officers used to fighting "Johnny Foreigner" actually had learnde a lot from the likes of the Boer Wars. However, the impact of artillary was the main killer. The vast majority of casualties were caused by artillary rather than bullets and therefore the image of vast ranks f men being mown down by German Machine Guns (although so very true of the First Day of the Somme) is not the norm for WW1). I honestly do not think that any experience of war Prior to WW1 would have prepared any soldier as to what to expect, let alone the Officers. It took a full 3 years for the armies of all nations to adapt, with the Germans adapting to the trench fighting first with the Storm Troopers. But once the war of manouver was finished in early 1915, that was it for tactics! Interstingly, although teh American Civil War is cited as being a rehersal for WW1, when the American Troops finally joined in in late 1917, their officers made axactly the same mistakes as the others had earlier in the war, and had their troops slaughtered in large numbers, and they had had the experience of the other nations of the past 2 1/2 to 3 years to learn from. Thus to single out Haig is, in my belief a bit harsh. Maybe all Generals are Butchers! However, WW1 was a truly immense tradgedy of epic proportions, and therefor the lessons we have learned must never be forgotten!
I think sometimes people underestimate the brutality of war before WWI, yes WWI was the worst fighting that the world had ever seen, but there were plenty of horrendous battles that took place in India and Europe during the late 1700's early 1800s involving artillery and the devastation of those machine gunners at the Somme is not unlike that of a canister round from a cannon. The British had plenty of experience in big bloody battles and it was certainly these battles that formed the basis for Haigs tactics at the beginning of the war. Haig is not the only military commander who has been lulled into a false sense of security by past victories. Look at Wellington, he waltzed through sieges in India, came back to Europe, used the same tactics against the French and lost far more men than he should have, but no one would ever accuse dear Arthur of being a butcher.
I'm not sure I would agree that Wellington "waltzed through sieges in India" and then sued the same tactics against the French. Wellington hated sieges, bith for the time that they took and for the considerable loss of men that they incurred on the attacking side. It is just that in Spain the French always had a field army out roaming as well as an army under siege and therefore time was of a real issue to Wellington in the seiges. He still hated them! And to compare Napoleonic artillary to that of WW1 is sort of comparing a Matchlock Musket with an Uzi. Although the results are the same, people end up maimed, disfigured or killed, the numbers capable of being killed over longer distances, in shorter time periods, with greater accuracy, means that WW1 was the first war where the vast majority of casualties were caused by artillary rather than "musketry" i.e. bullets. However, coming back on topic, I sort of agree and sort of disagree with you holyhead. Yes battles prior to WW1 were just as brutal, and and in many ways so much more personal, when you can see the whites of the eyes of the man that you are hacking to bits then that is somewhat personal. However the sheer scale of the slaughter on the battlefields of WW1, including those of the Eastern front as well as the Western Front, was like nothing at all seen of before. When the casualty figures for the British alone for he Somme Campaign, are 3 or 4 times bigger than the allied armies of both the French and British armies at Waterloo, and the casualty figures from the first Day for the British are about the same size as the total army Wellington fought with at Waterloo, then there is no real comparison as to the scale of the bloodshed and brutality of WW1. Therefore, just on numbers alone can Haig be called a Butcher? I don't believe so as this level of casualty figures for major battles and campaigns was the same for all of the armies fighting in WW1, and therefore was, I think a function of the technology. And since the vast majority of troops were killed by artillary fire, then can Haig be blamed for this? Would those casualties have occured with another Generral in charge? If you look at casualty figures from other arenas and battles, under different generals (Verdun for one which I have already mentioned) then I think that it doesn't matter who was in charge, the casualties were going to be so very high no matter who was in charge.
At last! The promised thread..... and I missed it until now! Unfortunately I haven't got time for a considered reply to the OP right now, so for the time being I'd just like to make a couple of quick points, and this seems like a good starting point: There was - it just took a long time (and an awful lot of casualties) before anyone worked it out. Leaving aside the development of the tank (which was still something of a work-in-progress even at the end of the war) the biggest tactical innovation was the use of 'infiltration tactics' by special assault units, which the Germans used to good effect during operation Michael. It just needed a bit of intelligence and imagination - something which most of the various General Staffs seemed to be sadly lacking! No, he wasn't the only one - but that doesn't make it any better! And he was more than just a general - he was the British Field Marshall, and as such bears a much heavier responsibility than most of our other leaders. I don't want to sidetrack the debate, but just for your information this isn't correct. We had had a defensive alliance with France for many years prior to WWI. The alliance system was what caused a dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia to escalate into World War.
I don't believe he was a butcher just clueless as to how to fight the type of war due to what others have already stated he was out of his depth. one thing I do know my great grandfather after coming back from WW1 immediately, left England and moved to Dublin, I was told because he hated what happened in the war and England and decided to leave and start a new life away from England, he only came back once for my grandfathers wedding. I would guess it all comes down to who's view you take and which historian you believe on the whole subject, for example take the charge of the light brigade sending horses against cannon, it's similar but the general in charge knew what he was doing.
So he moved to Ireland just in time for the Tan War and the Civil War! Unlucky! No! The Charge of the Light Brigade was a complete and utter ****-up! The command from Raglan got completely mixed up. They weren't supposed to charge into the 'valley of death'!
LOL Hi Johnno, welcome on board! Like the Yanks in the last two World Wars, late to come in, but very much welcome. All the best. I'll have more to say later, but I totally agree with the assessment made regarding the assult troops in Operation Michael, but the Germans were as bad as anyone else prior to that, and lost as many men through "bad tactics?" as any other nation. I'll be back later.
Indeed he moved there as a civilian not as a soldier and married an Irish woman, and they didn't avoid the troubles they had to sleep on the floor to avoid the bullets themselves. as quoted from Wikipedia: Raglan blamed Lucan for the charge, claiming that "from some misconception of the order to advance, the Lieutenant-General (Lucan) considered that he was bound to attack at all hazards, and he accordingly ordered Major-General the Earl of Cardigan to move forward with the Light Brigade." that was my reason for blaming leadership rather than a mistake, which I think differs to Haig on the basis he knew what he was doing when he did I believe who knows though.
I didn't mean to mock your Great-Grandfather, but it sounded like it might have been a case of 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'! I know the issue of who was to blame has been debated a lot by historians for a centrury and a half, but I was under the impression that the concensus these days was that it was a complete misunderstanding, with the blame lying primarily with Lew Nolan, Raglan's galloper.
