Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig.

[123everton]

Does Haig deserve the criticism he recieved?

[Mr Veritas]

As I was born in 1923 (5 years after WW1 ended) I can speak with some authority.
During my childhood years any adult male(usually ex military) of my acquaintance would spit,swear or some other derogatory gesture if Haig was mentioned.
The Butcher of the Somme is a good name.If you had grown up seeing all the maimed,amputated and gassed men around who could not (for no fault of their own) get jobs you would realise why he got that name.
The dead were actually the lucky ones.
I was brought up in society that consisted of many many spinsters, waiting for their loved ones who would never return;and who would never marry because of this.

[123everton]

But the Somme battles had to be prosecuted to keep the French in the field.
The logistics of the time meant there really was no other way to enter battl, was there?
Although marching out in lines was a nonsense.
Neither the Germans, the French, the Italians (look at Isonzo), the Austrians or the Russians had commanders who succeeded in any measure, you could argue that Mustapha Kemal Bey was a better leader but even he in the beginning just threw bodies in front of the guns at Gallipoli.
I'm not suggesting Haig was a great military leader, just that in context of the time, he was the best (and that's not saying much, Lloyd George) but he did adjust his tactics and at the most crucial moment he ceded power to the French to maintain the alliance.
The same French army that refused to assist the B.E.F who years earlier suffered in their thousands in the Somme to take the pressure off them in Verdun.

[Mr Veritas]

I am sorry but he wasn't the best,he was the worst;there were others that would have been better;but due to the "old boy network" Haig got the job and hung onto it!
This explains WHY he got the job,adn WHY he wasn't removed.
Haig married the Hon. Dorothy Vivian, a daughter of Hussey Vivian, 3rd Baron Vivian and a lady-in-waiting at the court of King Edward VII on 11 July 1905.His wife became Lady Haig in 1909 and the Countess Haig

I have no idea of war tactics as you do,All I know is he sent men into battles that should nevewr have been fought,he never admitted he was wrong nor would look out from his blinkered point of view.
You (being younger) may be able to look dispassionately at WW1,I being 85 still have a lot of anger and hate for ALL the WW1 iidiot generals.
I don't want to know WHy war is fought (right or wrong) I only know the carnage and emotional damage it did(and still does,much to my shame and sadness).

[vehelpfulguy]

>All I know is he (Haig) sent men into battles that
>should never have been fought,

Seeing as how there were 9 million people killed in the first world war I hardly think Haig can take responsibility for all of them.

As I said in the discussion about WW1 a few questions down, the German generals were just as reckless, trying to take Verdun from the French, where over 250,000 men (from both sides) were killed in 1916.

I have no idea if Haig was any better or worse than any other General, but it seems to me that most (many?) of the Generals had a scant disregard for human life.

Looking back 90 years it seems incredible that the war was allowed to continue as long as it did, with such mass slaughter.

I suppose it was like a giant snowball rolling down a hill, once it gets to a certain size, or a certain weight, it is difficult to stop it.

[vehelpfulguy]

>scant disregard

Should that be scant regard ?

Or was I right the first time.

[123everton]

We all knew what you meant VHG.
The thing is you have to look at the technology of the time nobody had the means to move men across open ground under fire safely or quickly.
If you look at one of the successful battles prosecuted, Cambrai, this is often cited as the solution to trench warfare, but was it?
Cambrai did involve the successful deployment of tanks, it was a limited offensive not a set piece battle intended to end the war quickly but 6 months after the battle the land had been lost in German counter offensives.
No land captured quickly in the Great War was possible to invest quickly apart from at the beginning (and Loos almost prevented that) and at the very end.
Tactics have'nt changed that much since then, ordinance used to be delivered by artillery whereas it's now delivered by air followed by infantry assault.
Veritas, I cannot substitute my reading for your experience or first hand accounts, I'm just opining and looking for insight etc.
Smith Dorien proved he was a very capable commander especially in retreat but I fear he still had'nt been forgiven for surviving Ishlandwana, thank to Wolseley's rather unguarded and somewhat unnecessary comments.

[123everton]

But who do you feel would have made a better job of it?
How and why?
What tactics could've been employed to turn the German's flank?
Politically Germany held all the aces because as Sassoon was reminded by his Dr. "they invaded France, they invaded Belgium and they're still there" the onus was on the Allies to oust the Germans because they were on their land the offensive had to be carried to the Germans.
What we have we hold I think was the old German maxim of the day.

[123everton]

Steve it's just a question, I don't view Haig as a great military leader, all I'm asking is does the hitorical evidence stand up to criticise him?
When you look at the Great War the sad truth is, is that the means with which we had developed things to kill people far exceded the means with which we could transport them alive.
People talk of the slaughter but how else could the war be prosecuted?
Sir John French's failure at Loos (Haig's battle) meant we had no chance to turn the German flank, so we dug in for trench warfare, armour was in it's infancy, aircraft was in it's infancy so the only solution was to shell it and storm it.
Cambrai was not a model that could've been rolled out across the lines because it would just create bulges thus leaving 2 flanks prone to attack and to make obvious the site for the next aliied attack added to that any gains were often uninvestable.
The Great War was a war of attrition, the technology (no wireless), the equipment (no tanks, few aircraft) and the politics (what we have we hold) made it so.
We had to attack they were happy to defend.
Haig did an incredible thing in Kaiserschlacht by relinquishing control to Foch, especially after Petain had been so slow to send in reinforcements, and the French refused to send help to us, all this after the Somme!

[123everton]

And further to that if you look at the rate of attrition after D-Day it was'nt that much different to WW1 but the technology had moved on so much that mobility was the key, static defences like the Maginot Line were useless not just because it was too short but because once breached in a few areas it was redundant.