archstanton73 | 26 May 2011 10:49 a.m. PST |
Well the figures talk for themselves--The division that ran as fast as possible made it to the German Trenches before the Germans came out of their bunkers! As for the creeping barrage at the Somme it wasn't that close and most units lost their barrage anyway!__And the French did quite well in comparison.. Remember he did also have a few aweful subordinates---For example Hunter Bunter whose VIII corps took the bulk of the losses truly was a burcher!! |
Supercilius Maximus | 26 May 2011 12:13 p.m. PST |
I don't think anyone's arguing with you in respect of Hunter-Weston. Remember that the whole thing was a learning process from the bottom up to the very top – no British Army had fought a battle of that size or complexity before. There were few, if any, precedents and the troops undertaking most of the assaults were relatively inexperienced. It's all very well saying things went wrong on day one – and they did – but this was precisely what Haig told Lloyd George he needed months more training to sort out. |
Etranger | 26 May 2011 8:36 p.m. PST |
Re the Somme – those British units that did best (in the South of the British sector) had a number of advantages over their colleagues further North – they were better trained for one thing, (by General Ivor Maxse, one of the best British generals of the war). They were trained to follow a creeping barrage, which they received, courtesy of the more experienced French gunners adjacent to them. "Their" wire was cut by the heavier artillery used (mostly by the French) in that area. They weren't left hanging up on the (uncut)wire as was the case elsewhere. For me, the question is, why if some divisions were adequately trained and supported before the First Day of the Somme, then why weren't the others? In part that is because the British Army left the nature & extent of training up to individual units (& some were a lot better & more realistic about it than others); but also because there wasn't a good enough recognition of and analysis of the strengths & weaknesses of the British Army of 1916, something that can be laid at the door of Haig et al at GHQ. Those steps were taken later on, but even as late as September 1916 there were still similar blundering frontal assaults being conducted by the British at the Somme, well after those tactics had been shown to be unsuccessful and equally after other approaches had been shown to be more successful? It took even longer for the message about appropriate ground conditions to sink in! (Ypres 1917 anyone?) If nothing else, Haig & the High Command were slow learners and deserve criticism for that. However, ultimately they did learn & by 1918 the British tactics were equal to everyone elses, even if they sounded more dramatic in German
|
Sane Max | 27 May 2011 2:22 a.m. PST |
it would be good to hear why people think he is a butcher with some kind of evidence to support that He sold me some sausages, and was wearing a red and white striped Apron and a Straw Hat. Pat |
artaxerxes | 27 May 2011 3:35 a.m. PST |
<<So, do we have to parade our dead relatives from WW1 to discuss this now?>> No Martin Rapier, we don't, and as the bard might have said it would make poor argument to do so. But you can't avoid the fact that the Great War has a socio-cultural pull that intersects with the familial/personal perspective that few other subjects in modern history do, at least in the Anglosphere. The dead weigh in the argument here, even if they are accorded too much weight. |
Ben Waterhouse | 27 May 2011 5:48 a.m. PST |
Etranger – Somme: because in A Democracy the politicians make the final decisions – Lloyd George ordered Haig to attack even whan advised that his troops were not ready. I recommend Forgotten Victory by Gary Sheffield that both explains the history and examines the myths. link |
Khusrau | 27 May 2011 6:39 a.m. PST |
You probably need to look at Paddy Griffith's book "Battle Tactics of the Western Front". I lost 7 of 8 great-uncles in the Black Watch, the 8th was gassed and invalided out. All generals in WW1 were struggling with conditions that had never been seen before, Haig deserves credit for trying to change the approach, and many of his battles were forced on him for political reasons when he argued that the conditions were not propitious. In the early days of WW1, there were lots of claims by different arms. the infantry claimed the firepower and discipline they could bring to bear were battle-winners, the artillery claimed they could break any position, the cavalry claimed they could use mobility to win battles. It wasn't until these claims were put to the test that a change could take place. And Haig, to his credit, tried all sorts of different types of assault. One thing often neglected is that the British artillery was often very short of shells until 1917. I am not claiming he was a genius, only that the impression formed of him is often very far from the truth. |
Grizzlymc | 27 May 2011 8:21 a.m. PST |
Sane Max The evidence is overwhelming – guilty as accused. ru teling me blackader isnt histry – OMG! |
Abwehrschlacht | 28 May 2011 2:20 a.m. PST |
My Great-Grandad was conscripted in 1918, arriving in France in late October. He played Football for the last week of the Great War. PS, I agree with everything TFL says. |
Craig Ambler | 28 May 2011 7:45 a.m. PST |
Haig for me. Not sure he was the worst and he may have been excellent for the men after the war, but during it I can't see he cared too much. Too many of his diary is often about troops not doing quite enough. Nice of him to say that in his back seat. Yes he tried to change tactics and introduced some good ideas, but I can't get past the man who pushed both Somme and Passchendaele well past their sell by dates. Craig |
General Monty | 28 May 2011 3:29 p.m. PST |
If Haig really was the worst General of WWI I do wonder how on earth the British forces actually won. Indeed thinking back to my A-Levels, we (the British) have a peculiar view of the conflict, in that we tend to dwell on the absolute number of casualties and the huge social impact of the war, rather than marvel at the fact we defeated an expansionist, aggressive military dictatorship. It was a tough, bloody war and mistakes were made. But ultimately we won (through innovation, strategy and tactics) and the folly of the German Generals led to Germany's utter defeat. I know amongst wargamers Germans troops have an almost mythical status, but you have to say that when it comes down to it being on the winning side is what matters in the end. |
Grizzlymc | 28 May 2011 4:58 p.m. PST |
Monty You arent suggesting that the Germans came second? Good lord! Next you will be telling me that their stormtrooper tactics were nothing dramatic, their tanks were pieces of crap and their navy wasnt victorious! Oh, and that the propertied classes were damn glad they werent shot by the reds? Surely not? They were just stabbed in the back when they were about to win! |
SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER | 28 May 2011 8:15 p.m. PST |
I got nothing. Also I didn't know Kitchener drowned when his ship hit a mine. Critterement SMC1 |
archstanton73 | 29 May 2011 9:10 a.m. PST |
General Monty--The main reason we won was because the Royal Navy managed to blockade Germany and Austro-Hungary so that by 1918 the Central Powers were running out of men and resources--The 1918 Spring Offensive was the last throw of the dice and they muffed it..They also expended probably the top 20% of their manpower by hiving them off to the stormtroops which while nearly won took horrendous losses..This left the not as good soldiers as the main bulk of the army..Combined with having short rations and general exhaustion (on both sides) the Armistice just finished the war before we all collapsed--Only the Americans were still full of energy but they had only been in fighting for a short period
Any idea that we really "Won" on the battlefield is false, while yes we were doing better against an exhausted enemy it was by no means a breakthrough
. |
General Monty | 29 May 2011 3:52 p.m. PST |
Mmmmm – I've seen the "Royal Navy won WWI" argument – I think it's a fairly recent interpretation, or at least I believe there was a recent thesis that argued this point of view. Whilst I'm sure the RN contributed I don't subscribed to the view that we were as nearly finished as the Germans when the war ended. Many contemporary accounts show that the Germans were utterly finished by the end of the war, demoralised and surrendering where they could. Indeed many British soldiers letters and accounts show a degree of disappointment at not being able to finish the job militarily. You could argue an equal thesis for WWII, where many accounts show elements of exhaustion in the Allied forces, but despite this there was a determination to finish the job and this time impose an emphatic victory that would destroy German militarism once and for all. Anyway I digress. I still think that those who criticise Haig have never really addressed the problem of what they (the Generals) should have done, given the confines of the technology and most importantly the lack of communications. The politicians gave them an objective and if anyone had come up with a simple solution to the military problems, the war wouldn't have taken 4 years to win. I mean it's not as if Haig sat down and planned the best way to murder his troops – I'm pretty sure his objective was the win the war. I also think the comment that Soviet generals in WWII don't attract the same amount of criticism as say, Haig, is quite interesting. Not many threads about Zhukov or Chuikov end up with the forensic examination of casualty rates that Haig gets battered with on every thread he gets a mention in. |
archstanton73 | 29 May 2011 3:59 p.m. PST |
Well if Germany had been freely able to import food,ore and other imported war materials then they would have been able to carry on the fight--As us Entente powers were by importing from our various Empires and America
I do agree that the Germans were at the end of their teather and were not getting fed or supplied properly--Despite having control of a huge chunk of Russia! |
BullDog69 | 09 Jun 2011 8:38 a.m. PST |
Gary Sheffield's 'Forgotten Victory' is another excellent read – though it won't appeal to those who form their opinion of Haig from watching Blackadder Goes Forth. As Haig was the CiC of the British forces which won the war by shattering the Germans in the battle of the hundred days, I think it would be a little strange to claim he was the 'worst World War One General'. In fact, one could argue that this would make him the best one. I lost relatives in the Boer War, WW1 and WW2. Does this mean they all served under the worst commander of the war? How unlucky can one family be!? |
Conrad | 01 Jul 2011 2:56 p.m. PST |
I don't know the relevant names, but I would certainly nominate the German commanders opposite the British and Canadians at Vimy Ridge. Once the Canadians (with a morsel of British support) had gained the ridge, they endured 18 successive, unsuccessful counter-attacks. Not one, or two, or five, or ten – eighteen. Then there's the German commanders opposite the Canadians who had conquered Hill 70, who mounted twenty-five unsuccessful counter-attacks on the position. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I would nominate General Grierson as the worst British general of the war. He died in unarmed combat with a weaponless opponent without having seen a shot fired in anger
|