Simviation Forums

Over the 24 to 36 hours of Remembrance Day, my fav. History Channel had doco after doco about WWI (and WWII), so there is much for me to bring up and disuss, but......another time.

For now, I'd like to hear some thoughts on Haig. Things like:

Your opinions as to whether he was the inept and totally out of touch General he has been touted as being?

Whether recent studies by historians, which indicate that he may have been blamed for far too much and show him in a better light, are justified?

Was he, more so than anyone else, responsible for the unspeakable carnage that occurred in many 'unsuccessful' attempts to break the 'stalemate'?

Did he fail to learn lessons from the earlier battles and failures that could have resulted in less casualties (and even earlier victory)?

Should he have been replaced by Lloyd George?

Was there anyone to replace him with? (Which is often the ONLY reason given for his remaining in command - lack of a suitable replacement)

Alas Haig was a product of the class system at that time, so he didn't give a pair of flying blue gibbons about those men in the trenches. There was an interesting thing in the news yesterday about Irish soldiers who were shot for things. One was executed for letting his hat fall on the ground
I think that at the time many of the people in command were rich twits whose ancestors knew a bit and hence these inbred chinless wonders were automatically put in charge when frankly they couldn't run a bath!
Mind you there are still quite a few of them lurking in the British military (look at the Guards regiments)

Theres an interesting article on this theory here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Knowing the attitude of the officer class, even during WWII, I'm inclined to agree with Ozzy. I think one of the best depictions of British army staff officers of the period is in "Blackadder Goes Forth". Watch it if you possibly can. While it's highly amusing it's unfortunately pretty close to the truth. The description "chinless wonders" isn't far wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/b/blackaddergoesfo_7770785.shtml

PS. The origin of the term "commissioned officer" goes back to the time when the least intelligent son of upper class families was often purchased a commision in the Army as he wasn't bright enough to enter a more conventional profession. The more you paid, the higher the rank.

Funny you should mention Blackadder, Hagar because at the beginning of one of the doco's (one concerning Haig and the decisions made regarding the hopeless attack strategies etc) they play a snippet from one of the episodes (all of which I've seen).

The scene in the Colonels office (way, way behind the lines) to whence Capt. Blackadder has been summoned.

Colonel: "Ahh, Blackadder. Field Marshall Haig has come up with a cunning plan for the upcoming offensive".

BA: "I see, Sir. Tellme, would this 'cunning plan', by chance, involve getting out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy?"

Colonels Aid: "Good God, Capt. Blackadder. How could you possibly know that. It's 'top secret'!"

BA: "Because, you worm of a man, it's the same plan we used last time, and the time before that, and the seventeen times before that. I think the Germans are beginning to cotton onto it!"

If it wasn't so true and tragic, it would be funny.

I also heard much mention, in several docos, about the Officers in the Army invariably being the 'dumber' son in an aristocratic family, who, to avoid embarrasment to the family by way of failure in some profession, was sent into the Army (where I presume it was considered impossible for an Officer to fail).

Most of the opinions from the 'experts' (and mine to, due to the little reading I have done about WWI), is that they were simply trying to fight a 19th century war, during the 'Industrial Revolution', which had made that style of warfare obsolete (not to mention quite dangerous for the troops).

The shame is that it took 4 years for them to realise what they needed to do and how to use the 'new fangled' gadgets (i.e quick firing accurate artillery, planes and tanks together in a concerted effort covering the advance. Once they did this, it all came together. Finally!

Most of the opinions from the 'experts' (and mine to, due to the little reading I have done about WWI), is that they were simply trying to fight a 19th century war, during the 'Industrial Revolution', which had made that style of warfare obsolete (not to mention quite dangerous for the troops).

The shame is that it took 4 years for them to realise what they needed to do and how to use the 'new fangled' gadgets (i.e quick firing accurate artillery, planes and tanks together in a concerted effort covering the advance. Once they did this, it all came together. Finally!

That about sums it up. Ufortunately this was promptly forgotten at the end of the Great War & the generals went back to their favourite cavalry concepts. The same lessons had to be quickly relearned 20 years later. Nobody in power ever seems to learn anything from history.

PS. The last sequence in the final episode of "Blackadder Goes Forth" is one of the most powerful & moving examples of TV drama I've ever seen. It still brings a lump to my throat & tears to my eyes at the futility of it all. Every politician & general in the world should be forced to watch it. IMHO

I think your all being a bit unfair on Haig and the generals in the First World War. You must remember that Haig would have learnt his trade when all the British army did was beat up African tribes. For the best part of a century the only slightly modern army we fought against were the Boers. This means that the generals have no experience what so ever in fighting an army that was armed with just the same weapons as the British. Now because no two "modern" armies had ever fought each other no one had developed battlefield tactics to use. So the Generals simply had to fall back on the tactics they knew which were unfortunately closer to Napolionic tactics than modern.

You've got to see the problem here. The Generals learnt the art of war in a time when they were lucky if their weapon was a breech loader. Suddenly the armys of the world find themselves with a weapon that can fire 500 rounds per minute. Therefore you cannot solely blame the Haig for what happened in the Great War. After all, up intill 1918 the Germans used exactly the same tactics as we did because they didn't know how to fight a modern army either.

Now you've got to realise that it's a good thing the First World war did happen. But imagine if we'd gone into the Second world war without that experience. Imagine fighting the second world war with First world war tactics. It would have made the Somme look like playground.

PS. The last sequence in the final episode of "Blackadder Goes Forth" is one of the most powerful & moving examples of TV drama I've ever seen. It still brings a lump to my throat & tears to my eyes at the futility of it all. Every politician & general in the world should be forced to watch it. IMHO

I remember when i first heard about the last episode, i thought it would be difficult if not impossible for them to turn what up till then had been a comedy series into a serious episode. But its safe to say they did it and did it very well. I agree with your comments on it being a very moving piece of TV. But i also quite liked the part where he was talking to Haig on the phone and haigs got a bunch of toy soldiers on his battle field then just knocks them over and cleans them up with a dustpan and brush. I must agree if you havent seen this episode or any of Blackadder goes forth do everything you can to see it video/DVD whatever, you wont regret it.

Now you've got to realise that it's a good thing the First World war did happen.

I can see what you're getting at Woody but maybe you could have worded it better. It's quite possible that there would have been no WWII if WWI hadn't happened. The terrible carnage of the "War to End ALL Wars" might as well not have taken place as the main protaganists were at it again just over 20 years later.

But imagine if we'd gone into the Second world war without that experience. Imagine fighting the second world war with First world war tactics. It would have made the Somme look like playground.

This is in fact exactly what did happen, both to the RAF up to & during the BoB & the tank regiments of the BEF. They were still using outdated pre-WWI concepts. WWI might never have taken place for all that had been learned in the way of tactics. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in all the British services.

This is in fact exactly what did happen, both to the RAF up to & during the BoB & the tank regiments of the BEF. They were still using outdated pre-WWI concepts. WWI might never have taken place for all that had been learned in the way of tactics. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in all the British services.

I was talking infantry tactics there. By the Second World war tanks and aircraft were still relatively new weapons. The Germans, with the Spanish civil war under their belts developed new tactics for both. Britain on the other hand still only had World war one to go by so naturally they used tank and aircraft tactics that had worked for them then. This is exactly the same reason we got out of our trenches at the Somme and walked slowly towards the enemy. Because those were tactics that had worked in previous wars. You have to remember that people are quite unwilling to use new methods intill it is clear that the old ones no longer work.

The Germans, with the Spanish civil war under their belts developed new tactics for both.

It doesn't apply to tanks but you're overlooking the fact that exactly the same  fighter tactics the Luftwaffe used from the outset of WWII had already been developed in WWI. The RAF was more concerned with keeping formation which might look pretty but was no use at all in combat. This would cost them dear until individual squadron commanders decided to ignore regulations & follow the Luftwaffe's example.

In which case those tactics could not have given the Luftwaffe any advantage in the First world war or other wise the British aviators would have sat up and taken notice.

In which case those tactics could not have given the Luftwaffe any advantage in the First world war or other wise the British aviators would have sat up and taken notice.

You're missing my point. By 1918 similar tactics were being used by fighter pilots on both sides. These had evolved over 4 years of bitter conflict. Only one side remembered this in 1939. The other one had to learn all over again.

I'm sure there are many similar examples. I remember reading about new members of British tank regiments being issued with jodphurs & riding boots & being trained to ride horses instead of handling the new tanks. Many tank units were ex-cavalry & their commanders found it difficult replacing their beloved horses & outdated cavalry traditions with machines.

I'm sure there are many similar examples. I remember reading about new members of British tank regiments being issued with jodpurs & riding boots & being trained to ride horses instead of handling the new tanks.

Where did you read this? I'm sure that after the First World war even the most dimwitted of Generals would have realised that cavalry were outdated.

Where did you read this? I'm sure that after the First World war even the most dimwitted of Generals would have realised that cavalry were outdated.

I not only read it but was told by my late father-in-law who joined the Royal Horse Artillery in 1940.

Where did you read this? I'm sure that after the First World war even the most dimwitted of Generals would have realised that cavalry were outdated.

You're damn right. The old (and not so old Cavalry Officers) totally ignored the existence of the Tank! In every army (except Germany) they didn't want to know about them.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of old 'fuddy duddies' resisting progress. Read some History about Patten (or one of his books, if you can find one). He was one of the very few Officers at the beginning of WWII who had accepted and promoted the tank in the preceding years. Although, mostly to deaf ears.

Only after the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Germans and the fall of conquering of Armies that, atv the time, were considered (relatively) modern and strong, were they FORCED to see that the Tank was the way in which this wara was going to differ so greatly from WWI. It was going to be a MOBILE war. Trenches were going to be obsolete (thank God).