Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'. David Lloyd George's view sums up the attitude of many people towards Haig and other British generals of World War One. They were, supposedly, 'donkeys': moustachioed incompetents who sent the 'lions' of the Poor Bloody Infantry to their deaths in futile battles. BBC - History - World Wars: The Western Front: Lions Led by Donkeys? Lions led by donkeys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Discuss?
And the German General Staff were consummate professionals. And they had a head start, as aggressors do. We won, they lost, go figure... Wasn't Haig generally (no pun intended) held in high regard by the veterans, whose opinion ought to carry some weight? Plenty of mistakes were made, without a doubt, but that's why the winner is usally the one that makes the fewer mistakes. Where does DLG stand in the pantheon of PMs? I know he's not had much competition in recent years, but I've never heard him described in the same manner as Churchill. That is a fairly honest question. And one can always call on the Gulf War analogy - if it had been left to the generals rather than the politicians, would we have needed a second one? (Lights blue touchpaper and retires to safe distance...)
Where does DLG stand in the pantheon of PMs? ...um...strangely enough, just the other night on another forum I saw him described as our first 20th century dictator! Not actually overly wrong - the host of emergency powers that accrued to the PM's position through WWI gave him the most incredible authority...
Discuss? Can't be arsed really excpet to say that who was beaten by a modern army using armour/artillery/infantry/air support in 1918 ?
And the German General Staff were consummate professionals. And they had a head start, as aggressors do. We won, they lost, go figure... Wasn't Haig generally (no pun intended) held in high regard by the veterans, whose opinion ought to carry some weight? Plenty of mistakes were made, without a doubt, but that's why the winner is usally the one that makes the fewer mistakes. I thought the winner was usually the side with the Americans.
Can't be arsed really excpet to say that who was beaten by a modern army using armour/artillery/infantry/air support in 1918 ? Can't be bothered or not interested? Maybe the Germans lost it in their offensive of 1918? The German Spring Offensive of 1918
Moved this to pre-war as it is a WW1 discussion. I would recommend you have a look at some books by Gary Sheffield or John Bourne for some recent 'pro Haig' debate, and Denis Winter's Haig's Command and several books by John Laffin for the contrary argument. And there are plenty of threads on the GWF about it.
I thought the winner was usually the side with the Americans. Ain't that a bit cart before the horse? Didn't they wait to see which way the wind was blowing before joining the winning side? Twice!
Moved this to pre-war as it is a WW1 discussion. I would recommend you have a look at some books by Gary Sheffield or John Bourne for some recent 'pro Haig' debate, and Denis Winter's Haig's Command and several books by John Laffin for the contrary argument. And there are plenty of threads on the GWF about it. What's the general concensus on the GWF, Paul?
...and the Americans' debut in WWI wasn't exactly glowing...! (tho' I DO like Sergeant York when it's on the telly...)
Yes, ongoing sums it up rather well. History is organic anyway, and what one generation makes of the Great War generals will no doubt be viewed differently by another.
Where does DLG stand in the pantheon of PMs? He did OK. House of Commons - Public Administration - Minutes of Evidence And Haig got 100k for all he achieved.
I still favour the lions led by donkeys interpretation, but I would apply it to all sides. The indifference to the loss of men in WW1 is almost beyond belief (and, again, this applied to all forces, enemy and allied). At 7.30 am on 1 July 1916 the Battle of the Somme began, by late afternoon that day there were 57,000 British casualties with some 19,000 killed. By the end of the battle British casualties were a staggering 419,654. Haigh didn't know the full number of casualties on the first day, but still his remarks in his diary are, well, remarkable:Sunday, 2 July A day of downs and ups! ... The news at 8 am was not altogether good. [followed by brief comments about the battle] After church I and [Lietenant General] Kiggell [Haigh's Chief-of-Staff] motored to Querrieu and saw Sir H. Rawlinson. I directed him to devote all his energies to capturing Fricourt. ... and then advance to the enemy's second line. ... General J. Du Cane (who is here on behalf of the Minister of Munitions) came to lunch. The AG reported today that the total casualties are estimated at over 40,000 to date. This cannot be considered severe in view of the numbers engaged, and the depth of front attacked. ... I hear that the enemy had only a few patrols in Bernafay Wood (north of Montauban) and that they were surrendering freely. One can only wonder how many casualties there had to be before Haigh would consider it severe. It might have helped had he cancelled a few of his appointments and after church motored up to the line. I think Siegfried Sassoon got it right with his lines on the Battle of ArrasThe General 'Good-Morning; good-morning!' the General said When we met him last week on our way to the line. Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead, And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine. 'He's a cheery old card,' grunted Harry to Jack As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
I'll say! 100k is £2,795,000 in today's values. From that I could work out DLG's 1.5 million 'back pocket' deal.
As both my Grandfather's survived WW1 abet wounded, I do'nt realy have an opinion on this subject but I wounder if the great loss of life had an effect on WW2, Monty in particular. The man was castigated particulary by the Americans for being too cautious and exact with his Battle Plans (Market Garden excepted) and his attitude to casualties and his troops, which as we know nearly cost him his command a number of times. Just a thought! Rob
Where does DLG stand in the pantheon of PMs? I know he's not had much competition in recent years, but I've never heard him described in the same manner as Churchill. That is a fairly honest question. It was LG who gave the political direction for victory in the Great War during his term of office as Prime Minister from 1916.He also kept an eye on Haig while he was PM and had in mind the useless slaughter of the Britsh Army in July 1916.Still, Passendale followed. LG lost his credibility in the 1930s when he made a private visit to Hitler on the Obersazburg in September 1936 and praised Hitler for what he had achieved in Germany since 1933. This was a year after the Nuremburg Laws, passed in 1935 and it suggests a lack of rational thought from these "appeasers",which sometimes is evident in the political classes from time to time.Churchill to his credit was concerned regarding Hitler's intentions in Europe and continually stressed the fact, so much so, from some quarters,he was accused of war mongering" When war finally broke out, LG anticipated a call from the country,a call that never came.
LG lost his credibility in the 1930s when he made a private visit to Hitler on the Obersazburg in September 1936 and praised Hitler for what he had achieved in Germany since 1933. Steady on! Quite a bit of revisionism here. You mustn't use too much 20-20 hindsight when viewing the past. LG was an outstanding PM. He simply was a one-man-band and didn't have a political party to support him after the war. Instead we had a succession of nonentities such as Bonar Law, Baldwin, and Ramsey Macdonald. Churchill, Attlee, and the Welsh Wizard, all without office, were some of the few brains left in Parliament. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with LG's visit to Germany in 1936 when at the time most of the British Press was tentatively praising Hitler. In what way did it damage LG? As forWhen war finally broke out, LG anticipated a call from the country,a call that never came. That is simply not how PMs were chosen in the 1930s. The country didn't 'call them'; party grandees selected them in backroom deals. When Chamberlain fell, the Conservative party, the King, the House, the Press, and the 'country, fully expected that Halifax would become the next Prime Minister and that Churchill would serve under him. Chamberlain called Halifax and Churchill, expecting Churchill to support his choice. Churchill himself later described how he was chosen. He described how Chamberlain, recognising that he could no longer continue as Prime Minister, tried to slew the succession in favour of Halifax and asked Churchill if he would serve under him. Churchill recorded that:As I remained silent a very long pause ensued. It certainly seemed longer than than the two minutes which one observes in the commemorations of Armistice Day. Then at length Halifax spoke. Halifax in effect said that he felt disqualified as a peer and suggested Churchill, to which Churchill agreed. But to return to LLoyd George, far from awaiting a call from the nation, Churchill wanted him to serve in the War Cabinet, but LG refused reluctantly, because of Chamberlain. LG would not serve with appeasers. Here is how LG ended his letter declining Churchill's offer I am no office seeker. I am genuinely anxious to help to extricate my country from the most terrible disaster into which it has ever been plunged by the ineptitude of her rulers. Several of the architects of this catastrophe are still leading members of your Government, and two of them are in the Cabinet that directs the war. Churchill knew this was true, but he felt that he could not abandon his loyalty to Chamberlain, his party Leader. So he ended up, initially, with two appeasers, Chamberlain and Halifax, in the War Cabinet, who after the fall of France timidly pressed for negotiations whilst LG, out of the War Cabinet, resolutely pressed for steadfastness.
