John Terraine: ‘The toughest assignment in modern British military history (i.e. since the creation of our first real Regular Army, the New Model) has been high command in war against the main body of a main continental enemy. Three British officers have undertaken such a task and brought it to a successful conclusion: the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Lord Haig. And in that Final Offensive, which ended with a German delegation crossing the lines with a white flag to ask for an armistice, the British Armies under Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig captured 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns. All the other Allies together, French, Americans, Belgians, captured 196,500 prisoners and 3775 guns. In other words, the British took just under 50% of all the prisoners and just over 40% of all the guns. That was the achievement of the British Citizen Army; I have called it, more than once, the 'finest hour' of the British Army. There has never been anything like that '100 Days' Campaign' of continuous victory in the whole of our military history. In the words of one who served from 1916 to 1918 and died only recently, Professor C. E. Carrington: In our thousand years of national history there has been one short period (1916-1918) when Britain possessed the most effective army in the world, and used it to win decisive victory. The most sinister of all the delusions within the trauma was to lose sight of that. What was the position of Haig's army on that day? It amounted to nearly two million men of the British Empire - the largest land force in the Empire's history. And they had just reached the end of a 'Hundred Days' Campaign' as glorious and decisive as that of 1815 which concluded the Battle of Waterloo - but infinitely less known. It was, in fact an unparalleled achievement in the history of the British Army, revealed by the stark statistics. And this was done in nine successive victories which were largely instrumental in bringing the war to an end in 1918 - and a consummation that Haig was determined to bring about. These victories should be as famous as Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet or Talavera, Salamanca, Vittoria and Waterloo. Instead, they are forgotten and unknown, so I will list them now: The Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918 ('the black day of the German Army'); The Battle of Albert, 21 August (the day on which Haig told Churchill 'we ought to do our utmost to get a decision this autumn'); The Battle of the Scarpe, 26 August; The Battles of Havrincourt and Epehy, 12 September (the approaches to the HindenburgLine); The Breaking of the Hindenburg Line, 27 September - 5 October (35,000 prisoners & 380 guns taken, the British Army's greatest feat of arms in all its history); The Battle of Flanders, 28 September; The Second Battle of Le Cateau, 6 October; The Battle of the Selle, 17 October; The Battle of the Sambre, 1-11 November. These were Haig's victories, handsomely acknowledged by Marshal Foch: Never at any time in history has the British Army achieved greater results in attack than in this unbroken offensive .... The victory was indeed complete, thanks to the Commanders of Armies, Corps and Divisions, thanks above all to the unselfishness, to the wise, loyal and energetic policy of their Commander-in-Chief, who made easy a great combination and sanctioned a prolonged and gigantic effort.’ In 1918, the British Army was the only Allied army capable of mounting a massive and sustained offensive.
In January 1918, yes. By November the US 1st and 2nd Armies were breaking through German lines (and Americans were arriving in France at the rate of 10,000 men a day)
Haig took Britain's greatest army and ground it into hamburger meat. He single handedly killed a generation of Britians of which Britian has never recovered from to this day. Every battle you listed was a Pyrrhic victory bathed in oceans of British blood. If Haig never attacked, Britian would have still won. There is only one man that should have been in command in that war and that is Arther Currie and Haig kept trying to kill his men at every chance he had. Haig crippled the British empire and caused its fall 40 years later by killing all of its children, shell shocking the population, and destroying an entire officer class.
@@machiavelli061 How did Haig destroy Britain's greatest army? If it was destroyed then surely there would be no army at the end of the war which there certainly was? How did he kill an entire generation of Britons? How would Britain have won if Haig had never attacked? And promoting Currie, a mere corps commander, to essentially an army group commander in charge of like 100,000 Canadians, in charge of almost 2 million men of various nationalities when he, and no one else other than Haig really, had experience of commanding at such a level? And dealing with allies etc, also why would Haig deliberately try and get Currie's Canadians killed, especially when they were, and still are, widely regarded as some of the best men the allies had?
I would argue that the allies greatest hour was surviving the spring offensives of the German Empire and grinding the Germans down despite incredible pressure. They bent, gave ground but never broke despite the stranglehold on manpower exercised by Lloyd George who seems to have worked hard for a German victory. The 100 days was brilliant but holding together in March to June was almost
In the final 100 days of the Great War the BEF represented only 60 Divisions, while the French 108 Divisions. 1,700 millions British troops vs 2,700 millions French troops.
@@davidchardon1303 Stop drinking.🍾🐭💦 The British Empire & Dominions total serving members was over 8 million. 5.4 million of which served in the BEF, reaching a peak strength in 1918, of just over 2 million. Missed you in Mons.
The myth was" lions lead by donkeys " 79 British general's killed in action , trench warfare in the end would have caused more deaths in the long haul there was no other alternative but to attack ( go over the top) in the end this won the war, saved maybe half million lifes . Haig was just as horrified with the enormous amount of deaths
@@chrisbaldwin3609 we get taught the "lions led by donkeys" and "butcher haig" narratives in school and in society, so i understand the cognitive dissonance, i had the same. Oh what a lovely war, blackadder, and Loyd George have had an extremely negative impact on society's understanding of ww1
How do you know he was horrified? Did he say that? And what did he do to mitigate it? Wasting British lives didn’t win the war. Germany ran out of gas and with the US entering, there was no hope of winning.
Between July 18 and the end of the war, the French, American and Belgian armies combined captured 196,700 prisoners-of-war and 3,775 guns, while British forces, with a smaller army than the French, engaged the main mass of the German Army and captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns. Let me repeat that: the French, American and Belgian armies combined captured 196,700 prisoners-of-war and 3,775 guns, while British forces captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns. British forces captured only 8,000 fewer prisoners and 935 less guns than the other allies combined In other words the British Army took just under 50% of the prisoners and just over 40% of the guns.
@@giovannipierre5309 "The British Army was the only capable Army to sustain a massive Offensive" what a load of nonsense. The French were on the Offensive with 60 Divisions, the size of the totallity of the BEF.
If you want to take it a step further, check out what the Canadian Corps accomplished in comparison to the combined forces of everybody else. 1/4 see Currie.
Thank you Professor ... your research does give a perspective on revising a terrible injustice to a Thoughtful Military leader trying to learn his craft under a new form of warfare.
Haig was not a cold-blooded butcher, as history has tended to portray him,' writes the Canadian historian, Daniel Dancocks, in his Legacy of Valour. 'Indeed, he was devoted to the men under his command.' Haig's enemies have trawled the accounts of the time diaries, memoirs, articles, letters to find evidence against him, carefully ignoring the other side of the story. Dancocks relates two incidents that show another facet of his admittedly dour and undemonstrative character. When the artist William Orpen arrived at GHQ in 1917 to paint Haig's portrait, he was told, 'Go and paint the men. They are the fellows who are saving the world, and they are getting killed every day.' Then again, after the war, when he was congratulated on the victory, he said 'You must not congratulate me,' and pointing to a soldier close by added, 'It is fellows like him who deserve congratulations.'
6 років тому+1
The sound recording was a bit off.. Yes Haig, well his and our misfortune was unlike 1940 the French army held their line. Other wise those blood bath battles wouldn't have been fought.
British Empire Total mobilized forces: 8,904,467 Killed or died:908,371 Wounded:2,090,212 Total casualties:3,190,235 Germany Total mobilized forces:11,000,000 Killed or died:1,773,700 Wounded:4,216,058 Total casualties:7,142,558 France Total forced mobilized:8,410,000 Killed or wounded:1,357,800 Wounded:4,266,000 Total casualties:6,160,800
The guy at 59:30 gets it soo right! The Germans suck bad at anything above tactical level. Re:Haig: If my dead grandmother had been the BEF commander, she would have won, and proly with less casualties
@Roger Dodger Could you, if you know about this, provide some details on that? I'd be interested to know if it's an established trend and what the causes were. Thanks!
Can you please include the Canadian Corps and General Currie in that too, who also managed to escape Haig's clutches and had success after success along with the Australian Corp?
"The machine-gun is a much over-rated weapon and two per battalion is more than sufficient." Haig, in a minute to the War Council, 14th April 1915 (see 'The Donkeys', Chapter 12, Alan Clark).
The quote actually comes from Baker-Carr's book "From Chauffeur to Brigadier", published in 1930. In it, Baker-Carr gives the source of the quote, made to Baker-Carr himself, and not in a war council memo, as "One army commander". There is never a mention of a name. However, in Haig's own diaries and letters there are many specific references to his thoughts on the power of machine gun and the importance he placed upon it, even during his time in the cavalry in the Sudan in 1897-98. Clark's work should be taken very much with a large dose of salt, and scepticism, as was attested to by Clark's own primary researcher, Graham Stewart.
Haig's own diary praises the machine gun, saying a single machine gun is worth a dozen infantrymen. Hubert Gough reinforces this saying that Haig massively increased the demand for machine guns. Haig was a massive fan of new technology
Critics will disparage this source (Baker-Carr), but yet when it comes to Haig's Last Despatch, they defend it like zealots as 'fundamentally correct'. Sheffield's words btw. I don't get how they can hold up Haig's own words so uncritically, but then deride/assassin any writer who contradicts Haig's own self serving view. Intellectually dishonest.
The speaker might be good at remembering detail but he is hopeless at logic and analysis. As ONE example (I haven't time or space for all of them, and there were many illogical statements, assertions and conclusions)) - his unflinching resolve been necessary and the mark of a great commander. Well, Monash and Currie showed great compassion and empathy for their troops and it didn't stop either from showing resolve nor asking for sacrifice above and beyond, and getting it. The difference is they did every thing in their power and intellectual ability to plan for results. Haig and others would reinforce failure. And then did everything they could to blatantly shift blame (and obvious and provable to anyone who call themselves a historian). The scapegoating by Haig and the scapegoating he condone by default amongst 'his team' at corp. army and divisional level was doubling damaging. He killed initiative and rewarded mediocrity, and removed the competent. Conclusion; Haig been callous and not showing concern for the the waste of life is NOT the mark of a great commander. The other glaring irrational is the constant comparison with other donkeys. Being the best of the donkeys (and there were plenty on all sides) still mean he was a donkey. Either through incompetence or design the speaker is an apologist for the dunderhead.
I almost don't want to watch this after reading your comments. I'll never understand how the British can love this elitist butcher. In my opinion, he was less worse than Enver Pasha, but in the same category, minus the genocide, of course.
Graeme SYDNEY Monash was Australian and Currie Canadian so this means they were both supermen endowed with special powers that the British did not have. It’s a wonder that the British even bothered to turn up to the war when half a dozen Australians and Canadians could have beaten the German army by themselves. Obviously Haig was stupid. He was British!
@@augnkn93043 (This has only just come to my attention). I note your childish sarcasm which has no basis in what I wrote. You might like to answer the question of why did the Australians and Canadians out perform the British despite the Australian and Canadian been non-professional citizen soldier and having the same weapons, same TOE, same organisation, same tactics, same support, similar training and both the Australian and Canadian were actually more than 50% GB born?
@@graemesydney38 The Monash/Currie comparisons aren't really fair though. They came in at a time where a lot of lessons had been learned, and they had a different role to Haig. Haig was in an operational command position; he wasn't conducting anything on the tactical level. He wasn't a battlefield commander.
He wants it both ways with Haig. A subordinate General has a minor success in his sector and this lecturer uses that to whitewash Haig's overall failure (Somme). A subordinate General makes an error or poor decision, and that is a good reason to whitewash Haig's failure. The lecturer says the Somme was a great learning experience for the soldiers & Haig - thus, a SUCCESS!!! In the first 3 days there were approx. 60,000 British casualties, of which approx. 20,000 were killed. I wonder what Haig "learned" . That machine guns really WERE deadly killers, after all ? Apparently not - in the following 4 months there were another 400,000 odd casualties (UK & Commonwealth forces), including almost 100,000 killed. Any imbecile recruited from an insane asylum and appointed BEF commander could not have done worse than Haig at the Somme. My grandfather (in the AIF) was killed in August 1917 in France and I find it utterly disgusting that so many 'historians' today are defending the vast waste of human life directed by uncaring incompetents like Haig & Rawlinson during WW1. Revisionist history at its worst. PS - the victories in 1918 were not Haig's or entirely the BEFs. The ANZAC divisions under Monash spearheaded the offensives in mid 1918....but this lecturer seems happy to ignore that fact, in his attempt to paint Haig as a military near-genius, because his plan was, effectively, "We can afford to suffer millions of casualties; you cannot. In the end we win because you run out of fighting men". Yes, the Allies won in late 1918, but how much earlier could they have won, with so much less Allied blood spent, if someone with the ability of Monash or Currie was directing affairs ? Another point - In the first few years of the War there was in the British High Command a mind-set that regarded high casualty rates as an indicator that the commanding General - of the Division involved - was a "thruster", a "fire-eater", as opposed to the namby-pamby Generals who failed to press an attack when initial attempts resulted in horrendous casualties, with no ground gained.
Haig only survived the disappearing act he did after the Battle of Mons because French was in hock to him (Haig had bailed him out of bankruptcy) Anybody else but French would have sacked him on the spot for leaving Smith-Dorrien and II Corp in the lurch at Le Cateau, and this ignores that he lost it completely and de facto left his post when the Germans attacked at Landrecies. What he did after that was arguably worse, but August 1914 was bad enough to have ensured he never led anything bigger than a company.
Field Marshal Haig did not cause this was it was the politics of the idiot Welsh prime minister who said if Belgium is attacked we go to war, the UK did not need to go to war as it was a European war Haig won the war and casualties exist🇬🇧
Assuming you are referring to Lloyd-George, he wasn't Prime Minister in 1914. Asquith was. And there was a lot more to the British decision than the 1839 Treaty. You might want to reconsider accusing other people of being "idiots", when you overlook basic facts.
Haig seems to me a very competent general in many ways but his flaw he did not end a bad offensive. Attrition is not excuse to continue a bad campaign. (For example look at the success at the Somme by the French on the first day. Would it not been smarter halt the campaign and find out why French were successful? 60,000 causalities in day after 5 days of bombardment means something is terribly wrong. ) He was not the worst commander of WW1 but not close to the best one either.
They knew at the time why the French were more successful, they had a far greater concentration of artillery. They also knew there was nothing they could do about that, they didn't have a magic wand that could suddenly make a large quantity of heavy guns and a sufficient, and reliable, stock of shells appear. They basically had to work with what they were provided. The terrain and quality of the defences also had a lot to do with the successes of the French, as it did with for the British who, south of the Albert-Bapaume Road, also had considerable success. Also remember that the French army was a lot more experienced at that time. The French had compulsory military service, which meant that the vast majority of their soldiers had at least 2 or 3 years experience, whereas the British army of the time was no longer the professional army of 1914, but was a very green and untested force of citizen soldiers with varying levels of training, officers included. Did they realise something had gone wrong? Yes, of course they did. Did they learn from it? Yes, they did. Haig insisted, quite uniquely at the time, on receiving 'after action reports' from his subordinates on all operations that took place. These reports were studied, the lessons (what worked and what didn't) were learnt and passed down through the training system to the benefit of the entire BEF. As for stopping the offensive at the Somme, that was never an option. The offensive had to continue in order to relieve the French at Verdun.
Todd Johnson Why do you mention you mention the Somme but not the 100 Days. John Terraine: ‘The toughest assignment in modern British military history (i.e. since the creation of our first real Regular Army, the New Model) has been high command in war against the main body of a main continental enemy. Three British officers have undertaken such a task and brought it to a successful conclusion: the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Lord Haig. And in that Final Offensive, which ended with a German delegation crossing the lines with a white flag to ask for an armistice, the British Armies under Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig captured 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns. All the other Allies together, French, Americans, Belgians, captured 196,500 prisoners and 3775 guns. In other words, the British took just under 50% of all the prisoners and just over 40% of all the guns. That was the achievement of the British Citizen Army; I have called it, more than once, the 'finest hour' of the British Army. There has never been anything like that '100 Days' Campaign' of continuous victory in the whole of our military history. In the words of one who served from 1916 to 1918 and died only recently, Professor C. E. Carrington: In our thousand years of national history there has been one short period (1916-1918) when Britain possessed the most effective army in the world, and used it to win decisive victory. The most sinister of all the delusions within the trauma was to lose sight of that. What was the position of Haig's army on that day? It amounted to nearly two million men of the British Empire - the largest land force in the Empire's history. And they had just reached the end of a 'Hundred Days' Campaign' as glorious and decisive as that of 1815 which concluded the Battle of Waterloo - but infinitely less known. It was, in fact an unparalleled achievement in the history of the British Army, revealed by the stark statistics. And this was done in nine successive victories which were largely instrumental in bringing the war to an end in 1918 - and a consummation that Haig was determined to bring about. These victories should be as famous as Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet or Talavera, Salamanca, Vittoria and Waterloo. Instead, they are forgotten and unknown, so I will list them now: The Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918 ('the black day of the German Army'); The Battle of Albert, 21 August (the day on which Haig told Churchill 'we ought to do our utmost to get a decision this autumn'); The Battle of the Scarpe, 26 August; The Battles of Havrincourt and Epehy, 12 September (the approaches to the HindenburgLine); The Breaking of the Hindenburg Line, 27 September - 5 October (35,000 prisoners & 380 guns taken, the British Army's greatest feat of arms in all its history); The Battle of Flanders, 28 September; The Second Battle of Le Cateau, 6 October; The Battle of the Selle, 17 October; The Battle of the Sambre, 1-11 November. These were Haig's victories, handsomely acknowledged by Marshal Foch: Never at any time in history has the British Army achieved greater results in attack than in this unbroken offensive .... The victory was indeed complete, thanks to the Commanders of Armies, Corps and Divisions, thanks above all to the unselfishness, to the wise, loyal and energetic policy of their Commander-in-Chief, who made easy a great combination and sanctioned a prolonged and gigantic effort.’ In 1918, the British Army was the only Allied army capable of mounting a massive and sustained offensive. How does this make Haig ‘not even close to the best’?
This clip is from 2013. It's now January, 2022. And these clips keep coming. Historians trying to rewrite history. The sediment in 1935 was correct. Haig was a butcher. The commonwealth soldiers were lions lead by donkeys.
It's now April 2023, but none of this should be an obstacle to historians having a grown-up debate, based on evidence. I would prefer history to be written that way, and for prevailing narratives to be challenged, rather than the Donkeys/O What a Lovely War/Blackadder version to continue to go unchallenged.
If Haig was such a bloody Genius why was it that most with any sense like the Canadian Corps under General Currie and the Australian Corp under Monash, couldn't wait to escape Haig's clutches fast enough, and then went on to have success after success? Funny how they both wanted to escape Haig's brilliance? Also, why was there so much pressure in Britain, at the time to remove Haig, and it was mainly due to his family's Money which propped Him up and keep him in luxury miles from the front, which he also never visited or even looked at? The Americans certainly wouldn't have any part of either which He tried for also. The man at the end just really said a prayer and hoped for the best, when all is said and done, that's not brilliance it's dumb luck and even fighting a war of attrition it's the other side you want to run out of Men first, not send in wave after wave of Men to be slaughter almost to the Man and then comment "Well they did not give of their best" as He did on the Somme. His tactics were most people's definition of insanity.
All of the criticisms about Haig can be made 10 times over about Zhukov yet Zhukov is one of the greatest generals of the 20th century Haig is deeply flawed bit he is far from the donkey often portrayed and was much more tactically inventive than the likes pf Zhukov ever were.
I don't know how true it is, but l have read that had the war gone into 1919 Monash would very likely been given command of the BEF. He was certainly a brilliant general the corps level as was Currie.
Why do you think Scottish nationalist called Haig Scotland's greatest general? Because no one killed more Sasseneach than Haig. Told to me by an actual Scottish person
My Dear Major Pando, First of all thank you for your kind reply and I congratulate you on your grammar ,Some of the jottings on these sites make you wonder what if any school they went to.. Yes this country although I served in the RAF is and always will be a war mongering country, The assassination of the Arch Duke of Ferdinand was the cause of it really and our lads had to lay down the'yr lives for the connection of the Kaiser Wilhelm and our own royals too.. Also whilst we had few machine guns as apposed to the Germans the soldiers were told to walk not run and were slaughtered My dad told me about it.. It is a disgrace and disgusting that whilst our soldiers were dying Haig and his cronies were dining in silver the bastard and the class system recognised him and Kitchener as heroes , The murderers...
Falkenheyn at Verdun was a "butcher" for attritional battle, Haig at the Somme was merely clever for a 'plan B' contingency. (Or as Haig called it: a 'wearing out' battle.) 420,000 Commonwealth casualties is 'on the job training.' Hooray for apologist spin doctoring... By 1918, the Michael offensive had failed, Germany was starved of resources in every way, the US was beginning to fight. By 1918 Haig was just 'still there.'
IF Marshal Haig really was interested in the new technologies and weaponry, as this documentary claims, why did he not grasp the need for machine guns and push for their use and distribution? And why would he repeatedly continue to insist until the mid 1930s!! that cavalry were to be BACKED by air and tanks as auxillaries?! Machine guns were the firepower of the infantry and the Germans had one for every platoon. The British one for every company. This to a large degree explains the 1 1/2 -1 losses in the war ON AVERAGE in the war! And they shrug off the total and unremitting catastrophe of Paeschendale as Oh, yeah well he was not perfect but he won the war. I'd not know whether to laugh or cry at that 'explanation' by mental midgets. Apparently we are supposed to be won over to the argument of his greatness because HE unlike many others was prepared to suffer unnecessarily high casualties to succeed. Casualties of his historic incompetence and lack of vision!
In the Third Battle of Ypres casualty levels were *lower* than in the Somme.. Paeschendale being only *part* of the Third Battle of Ypres. The two battles took place over about the same amount of ground, with about the same number of divisions, over about the same period of time, yet the Third Battle of Ypres (which we in Britain refer to as Paeschendale) saw the BEF take almost 30% FEWER casualties than the Somme. Despite the fact it was a more open style of warfare, with more profligate use of artillery on both sides... and lets face it, Artillery was the real killer in WWI. Next, when Haig visitied the experimental tanks while they were in the final stages of their testing, he asked how many could he have, and how soon. These were the damned DEFINITION of new technology. Fine, so they didnt know how to use them correctly in 1916 when they first got their hands on them... but NO ONE knew how to use them in 1916. They were NEW. Haig said nothing in the 1930s, As KentA Mitchell noted quite correctly he died in 1928. The Infantry platoon was rebuilt during 1916 and 1917 AROUND a machinegun, namely the Lewis gun. Infantry tactics changed totally, a little known fact is that *all* British Infantry were trained in what the Germans called Stosstruppen tactics by late 1916 and early 1917, not just the Stosstruppen Divisions that the Germans wasted during the 1918 Spring Offensives. Command and Control sucked in WWI, especially on the offense, because communication sucked. Radios were at best unreliable and were huge to boot, which meant they had to rely on telephones (one of the most dangerous jobs during the Great war was repairing severed telephone lines), pigeons, or the simple expedient of sending a runner back through the barrage that was now coming down... needless to say Runners had a VERY short life expectancy, it was a job actually more dangerous than repairing the telephone lines... which is saying something. The Germans never really had an effective LIGHT machinegun during WWI, the British did, the Lewis gun, which Haig adopted entusiastically, because a Lewis gun could be operated and moved by a two man team, a Vickers required two men to operate, and 3 men to move... and then slowly. More importantly the Lewis gun could offer fire support to an infantry platoon ON THE OFFENSIVE, which the maxim type guns were too unwieldy to do, and the Vickers was a maxim style gun. So basically, you claim an extensive military education, fail to learn that Haig Died before the 1930's so could not possibly have advocated the tactics you stated he did in the 1030's, you ignored his desire to get as many tanks as possible, ignoored the fact he backed the Lewis gun to the hilt (and whined when he couldnt get enough of them), were you asleep during this so called military education? I am thinking so.... as a mere Marine Bioogist can cut holes three miles wide and 5 deep through your so called arguments. Yes, Haig made mistakes, people paid for those mistakes with their lives. But Haig was also fighting the first truly Industrial war, and he did not have the luxury the Germans had, of sitting on the defensive as much as possible. Th French and British *had* to push German forces from France and Belgium to get a chance of a satisfactory Peace agreement. That means they *had* to fight an offensive war. And dont say German generals were any better... any general that puts their best troops into a few spearhead divisions then wastes their lives in huge numbers in tactically sound but strategically confused offensives is as bad as you claim Haig is.... and thats what the slaughter of the German Stosstruppen during early 1918 was... the smashing of Germanies *best* troops, by their own commanders.....
Basically you are making the same mistake other people make, you are applying MODERN knowledge and MODERN military tactics to generals who did NOT have the advantage of that knowledge.
To put it into perspective... in 1914 tactics had not changed much since the damned Napoleonic wars.... By 1918, the tactics used are familiar to any modern soldier... modern warfare was BORN in the First World War.
You have some point in that but overstate it . Some major changes HAD happened by 1914. The entire German plan of attack was planned around the use of railways to concentrate forces quickly enough to win (An idea born in the US civil War along with telegraph communications, trenches, submarines, armored ships. barbed wire, machine guns who were used first there; if only in small numbers). And it was not until WW II that the proper use of armored divisions and tanks was discovered (as proven by the allied disasters in May 1940). So not quite as simple as you say. And still it does not change the fact that Haig was a disaster although it seems today's politicians for evil purposes are trying to rewrite history and blame anti war sentiment in the 1920's and 30' on the hippies and the 1960's/70's. Its utter crap. I went to the UK's # 1 Military academy in the 70's with Haig's bronze Statue next to the memorial arch filled with the young men killed by HIS incompetence. He was saved by the Yanks fresh troops. Haig was as Churchill said 'a terrible choice for commander in Chief;one that we do not want but cannot for political reasons get rid of' (1916!). Churchill was right!
Haig was not a donkey, he was a stubborn jackass. The greater success of the BEF in Belgium and elsewhere was mostly due to subordinate generals trying to break the stalemate of turn of the century warfare. Haig was stubborn to a fault at times, holding on to the strategic and tactical orthodoxy.
Excellent thanks
John Terraine:
‘The toughest assignment in modern British military history (i.e. since the creation of our first real Regular Army, the New Model) has been high command in war against the main body of a main continental enemy. Three British officers have undertaken such a task and brought it to a successful conclusion: the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Lord Haig.
And in that Final Offensive, which ended with a German delegation crossing the lines with a white flag to ask for an armistice, the British Armies under Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig captured 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns. All the other Allies together, French, Americans, Belgians, captured 196,500 prisoners and 3775 guns. In other words, the British took just under 50% of all the prisoners and just over 40% of all the guns.
That was the achievement of the British Citizen Army; I have called it, more than once, the 'finest hour' of the British Army. There has never been anything like that '100 Days' Campaign' of continuous victory in the whole of our military history. In the words of one who served from 1916 to 1918 and died only recently, Professor C. E. Carrington:
In our thousand years of national history there has been one short period (1916-1918) when Britain possessed the most effective army in the world, and used it to win decisive victory.
The most sinister of all the delusions within the trauma was to lose sight of that.
What was the position of Haig's army on that day? It amounted to nearly two million men of the British Empire - the largest land force in the Empire's history. And they had just reached the end of a 'Hundred Days' Campaign' as glorious and decisive as that of 1815 which concluded the Battle of Waterloo - but infinitely less known.
It was, in fact an unparalleled achievement in the history of the British Army, revealed by the stark statistics. And this was done in nine successive victories which were largely instrumental in bringing the war to an end in 1918 - and a consummation that Haig was determined to bring about.
These victories should be as famous as Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet or Talavera, Salamanca, Vittoria and Waterloo. Instead, they are forgotten and unknown, so I will list them now:
The Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918 ('the black day of the German Army');
The Battle of Albert, 21 August (the day on which Haig told Churchill 'we ought to do our utmost to get a decision this autumn');
The Battle of the Scarpe, 26 August;
The Battles of Havrincourt and Epehy, 12 September (the approaches to the HindenburgLine);
The Breaking of the Hindenburg Line, 27 September - 5 October (35,000 prisoners & 380 guns taken, the British Army's greatest feat of arms in all its history);
The Battle of Flanders, 28 September;
The Second Battle of Le Cateau, 6 October;
The Battle of the Selle, 17 October;
The Battle of the Sambre, 1-11 November.
These were Haig's victories, handsomely acknowledged by Marshal Foch:
Never at any time in history has the British Army achieved greater results in attack than in this unbroken offensive .... The victory was indeed complete, thanks to the Commanders of Armies, Corps and Divisions, thanks above all to the unselfishness, to the wise, loyal and energetic policy of their Commander-in-Chief, who made easy a great combination and sanctioned a prolonged and gigantic effort.’
In 1918, the British Army was the only Allied army capable of mounting a massive and sustained offensive.
In January 1918, yes. By November the US 1st and 2nd Armies were breaking through German lines (and Americans were arriving in France at the rate of 10,000 men a day)
Haig took Britain's greatest army and ground it into hamburger meat. He single handedly killed a generation of Britians of which Britian has never recovered from to this day. Every battle you listed was a Pyrrhic victory bathed in oceans of British blood. If Haig never attacked, Britian would have still won. There is only one man that should have been in command in that war and that is Arther Currie and Haig kept trying to kill his men at every chance he had.
Haig crippled the British empire and caused its fall 40 years later by killing all of its children, shell shocking the population, and destroying an entire officer class.
@@machiavelli061 How did Haig destroy Britain's greatest army? If it was destroyed then surely there would be no army at the end of the war which there certainly was? How did he kill an entire generation of Britons? How would Britain have won if Haig had never attacked? And promoting Currie, a mere corps commander, to essentially an army group commander in charge of like 100,000 Canadians, in charge of almost 2 million men of various nationalities when he, and no one else other than Haig really, had experience of commanding at such a level? And dealing with allies etc, also why would Haig deliberately try and get Currie's Canadians killed, especially when they were, and still are, widely regarded as some of the best men the allies had?
Where did you get this from? It's a very interesting account that id like to read
I would argue that the allies greatest hour was surviving the spring offensives of the German Empire and grinding the Germans down despite incredible pressure. They bent, gave ground but never broke despite the stranglehold on manpower exercised by Lloyd George who seems to have worked hard for a German victory. The 100 days was brilliant but holding together in March to June was almost
In the final 100 days of the Great War the BEF engaged, and defeated, 99 of the 197 German Divisions in the West.
In the final 100 days of the Great War the BEF represented only 60 Divisions, while the French 108 Divisions. 1,700 millions British troops vs 2,700 millions French troops.
Does that include Anzac and Canadian troops?
@@mightymuzrub It includes everything.
@@davidchardon1303
Stop drinking.🍾🐭💦
The British Empire & Dominions total serving members was over 8 million.
5.4 million of which served in the BEF, reaching a peak strength in 1918, of just over 2 million.
Missed you in Mons.
@@rpm1796 Which is way below the French Army. Missed you in Charleroi.
The myth was" lions lead by donkeys " 79 British general's killed in action , trench warfare in the end would have caused more deaths in the long haul there was no other alternative but to attack ( go over the top) in the end this won the war, saved maybe half million lifes . Haig was just as horrified with the enormous amount of deaths
what load of cobblers 😆
@@chrisbaldwin3609 we get taught the "lions led by donkeys" and "butcher haig" narratives in school and in society, so i understand the cognitive dissonance, i had the same. Oh what a lovely war, blackadder, and Loyd George have had an extremely negative impact on society's understanding of ww1
@@internetenjoyer1044 And Clark confessed that he completely made up the "Lions led by Donkeys" quote.....
How do you know he was horrified? Did he say that? And what did he do to mitigate it? Wasting British lives didn’t win the war. Germany ran out of gas and with the US entering, there was no hope of winning.
Between July 18 and the end of the war, the French, American and Belgian armies combined captured 196,700 prisoners-of-war and 3,775 guns, while British forces, with a smaller army than the French, engaged the main mass of the German Army and captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns.
Let me repeat that: the French, American and Belgian armies combined captured 196,700 prisoners-of-war and 3,775 guns, while British forces captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns.
British forces captured only 8,000 fewer prisoners and 935 less guns than the other allies combined
In other words the British Army took just under 50% of the prisoners and just over 40% of the guns.
Pa. D
U mad?
Still with breathtakingly erudite contributions like yours, who’s complaining?
@@giovannipierre5309 "The British Army was the only capable Army to sustain a massive Offensive" what a load of nonsense. The French were on the Offensive with 60 Divisions, the size of the totallity of the BEF.
If you want to take it a step further, check out what the Canadian Corps accomplished in comparison to the combined forces of everybody else.
1/4 see Currie.
Thank you Professor ... your research does give a perspective on revising a terrible injustice to a Thoughtful Military leader trying to learn his craft under a new form of warfare.
What about Haig's failure to help Smith Dorrien at Le Cateau?
Fun fact: distance cousin of USA Sec of State Alexander Haig
Haig was not a cold-blooded butcher, as history has tended to portray him,' writes the Canadian historian, Daniel Dancocks, in his Legacy of Valour. 'Indeed, he was devoted to the men under his command.' Haig's enemies have trawled the accounts of the time diaries, memoirs, articles, letters to find evidence against him, carefully ignoring the other side of the story. Dancocks relates two incidents that show another facet of his admittedly dour and undemonstrative character. When the artist William Orpen arrived at GHQ in 1917 to paint Haig's portrait, he was told, 'Go and paint the men. They are the fellows who are saving the world, and they are getting killed every day.' Then again, after the war, when he was congratulated on the victory, he said 'You must not congratulate me,' and pointing to a soldier close by added, 'It is fellows like him who deserve congratulations.'
The sound recording was a bit off.. Yes Haig, well his and our misfortune was unlike 1940 the French army held their line. Other wise those blood bath battles wouldn't have been fought.
British Empire
Total mobilized forces: 8,904,467
Killed or died:908,371
Wounded:2,090,212
Total casualties:3,190,235
Germany
Total mobilized forces:11,000,000
Killed or died:1,773,700
Wounded:4,216,058
Total casualties:7,142,558
France
Total forced mobilized:8,410,000
Killed or wounded:1,357,800
Wounded:4,266,000
Total casualties:6,160,800
Interesting stats. Source?
The guy at 59:30 gets it soo right! The Germans suck bad at anything above tactical level.
Re:Haig: If my dead grandmother had been the BEF commander, she would have won, and proly with less casualties
0-2 in World Wars.
@Roger Dodger Could you, if you know about this, provide some details on that? I'd be interested to know if it's an established trend and what the causes were. Thanks!
Now do a lecture on Monash who made Haig look utterly Napoleonic, which he was.
Can you please include the Canadian Corps and General Currie in that too, who also managed to escape Haig's clutches and had success after success along with the Australian Corp?
Haig Good or Bad? Surely the right strategy was to block the Baltic as Fisher and others had argued???
"The machine-gun is a much over-rated weapon and two per battalion is more than sufficient."
Haig, in a minute to the War Council, 14th April 1915 (see 'The Donkeys', Chapter 12, Alan Clark).
The quote actually comes from Baker-Carr's book "From Chauffeur to Brigadier", published in 1930. In it, Baker-Carr gives the source of the quote, made to Baker-Carr himself, and not in a war council memo, as "One army commander". There is never a mention of a name. However, in Haig's own diaries and letters there are many specific references to his thoughts on the power of machine gun and the importance he placed upon it, even during his time in the cavalry in the Sudan in 1897-98.
Clark's work should be taken very much with a large dose of salt, and scepticism, as was attested to by Clark's own primary researcher, Graham Stewart.
Vuko Jebina
Compared to artillery.
Haig's own diary praises the machine gun, saying a single machine gun is worth a dozen infantrymen.
Hubert Gough reinforces this saying that Haig massively increased the demand for machine guns.
Haig was a massive fan of new technology
I do wish people would stop assuming that everything in the Donkeys is fact. The fact is, it isn't. It's a remarkably sloppy, if powerful book.
Critics will disparage this source (Baker-Carr), but yet when it comes to Haig's Last Despatch, they defend it like zealots as 'fundamentally correct'. Sheffield's words btw.
I don't get how they can hold up Haig's own words so uncritically, but then deride/assassin any writer who contradicts Haig's own self serving view.
Intellectually dishonest.
Monash and Currie won in 1918. Despite of, not because of Haig.
The speaker might be good at remembering detail but he is hopeless at logic and analysis.
As ONE example (I haven't time or space for all of them, and there were many illogical statements, assertions and conclusions)) - his unflinching resolve been necessary and the mark of a great commander.
Well, Monash and Currie showed great compassion and empathy for their troops and it didn't stop either from showing resolve nor asking for sacrifice above and beyond, and getting it. The difference is they did every thing in their power and intellectual ability to plan for results.
Haig and others would reinforce failure. And then did everything they could to blatantly shift blame (and obvious and provable to anyone who call themselves a historian). The scapegoating by Haig and the scapegoating he condone by default amongst 'his team' at corp. army and divisional level was doubling damaging. He killed initiative and rewarded mediocrity, and removed the competent.
Conclusion; Haig been callous and not showing concern for the the waste of life is NOT the mark of a great commander.
The other glaring irrational is the constant comparison with other donkeys. Being the best of the donkeys (and there were plenty on all sides) still mean he was a donkey.
Either through incompetence or design the speaker is an apologist for the dunderhead.
I almost don't want to watch this after reading your comments.
I'll never understand how the British can love this elitist butcher.
In my opinion, he was less worse than Enver Pasha, but in the same category, minus the genocide, of course.
Graeme SYDNEY
Monash was Australian and Currie Canadian so this means they were both supermen endowed with special powers that the British did not have. It’s a wonder that the British even bothered to turn up to the war when half a dozen Australians and Canadians could have beaten the German army by themselves. Obviously Haig was stupid. He was British!
@@augnkn93043
(This has only just come to my attention).
I note your childish sarcasm which has no basis in what I wrote. You might like to answer the question of why did the Australians and Canadians out perform the British despite the Australian and Canadian been non-professional citizen soldier and having the same weapons, same TOE, same organisation, same tactics, same support, similar training and both the Australian and Canadian were actually more than 50% GB born?
@@graemesydney38 The Monash/Currie comparisons aren't really fair though. They came in at a time where a lot of lessons had been learned, and they had a different role to Haig. Haig was in an operational command position; he wasn't conducting anything on the tactical level. He wasn't a battlefield commander.
@@internetenjoyer1044 Haig had every opportunity to change his tactics and did not do so. A close-minded student of the walk to your death tactic.
The Great War for Civilisation I didn’t believe in it then and I believe in it less so now
J.R.R. Tolkien circa 1960s
Why did Tolkien enlist then? Methinks he was playing up to certain myths and narratives.
30:35 Somme attrition? The battle was a defensive victory for Germany. Britain's offensive failed. Haig should have been sacked in 1916.
He wants it both ways with Haig. A subordinate General has a minor success in his sector and this lecturer uses that to whitewash Haig's overall failure (Somme). A subordinate General makes an error or poor decision, and that is a good reason to whitewash Haig's failure. The lecturer says the Somme was a great learning experience for the soldiers & Haig - thus, a SUCCESS!!! In the first 3 days there were approx. 60,000 British casualties, of which approx. 20,000 were killed. I wonder what Haig "learned" . That machine guns really WERE deadly killers, after all ? Apparently not - in the following 4 months there were another 400,000 odd casualties (UK & Commonwealth forces), including almost 100,000 killed. Any imbecile recruited from an insane asylum and appointed BEF commander could not have done worse than Haig at the Somme.
My grandfather (in the AIF) was killed in August 1917 in France and I find it utterly disgusting that so many 'historians' today are defending the vast waste of human life directed by uncaring incompetents like Haig & Rawlinson during WW1. Revisionist history at its worst.
PS - the victories in 1918 were not Haig's or entirely the BEFs. The ANZAC divisions under Monash spearheaded the offensives in mid 1918....but this lecturer seems happy to ignore that fact, in his attempt to paint Haig as a military near-genius, because his plan was, effectively, "We can afford to suffer millions of casualties; you cannot. In the end we win because you run out of fighting men". Yes, the Allies won in late 1918, but how much earlier could they have won, with so much less Allied blood spent, if someone with the ability of Monash or Currie was directing affairs ?
Another point - In the first few years of the War there was in the British High Command a mind-set that regarded high casualty rates as an indicator that the commanding General - of the Division involved - was a "thruster", a "fire-eater", as opposed to the namby-pamby Generals who failed to press an attack when initial attempts resulted in horrendous casualties, with no ground gained.
Haig only survived the disappearing act he did after the Battle of Mons because French was in hock to him (Haig had bailed him out of bankruptcy)
Anybody else but French would have sacked him on the spot for leaving Smith-Dorrien and II Corp in the lurch at Le Cateau, and this ignores that he lost it completely and de facto left his post when the Germans attacked at Landrecies.
What he did after that was arguably worse, but August 1914 was bad enough to have ensured he never led anything bigger than a company.
The WW1 butcher's bill would have been markedly smaller if Smith-Dorrien had been Commander in Chief.
Field Marshal Haig did not cause this was it was the politics of the idiot Welsh prime minister who said if Belgium is attacked we go to war, the UK did not need to go to war as it was a European war Haig won the war and casualties exist🇬🇧
Assuming you are referring to Lloyd-George, he wasn't Prime Minister in 1914. Asquith was. And there was a lot more to the British decision than the 1839 Treaty. You might want to reconsider accusing other people of being "idiots", when you overlook basic facts.
Haig seems to me a very competent general in many ways but his flaw he did not end a bad offensive. Attrition is not excuse to continue a bad campaign. (For example look at the success at the Somme by the French on the first day. Would it not been smarter halt the campaign and find out why French were successful? 60,000 causalities in day after 5 days of bombardment means something is terribly wrong. ) He was not the worst commander of WW1 but not close to the best one either.
They knew at the time why the French were more successful, they had a far greater concentration of artillery. They also knew there was nothing they could do about that, they didn't have a magic wand that could suddenly make a large quantity of heavy guns and a sufficient, and reliable, stock of shells appear. They basically had to work with what they were provided. The terrain and quality of the defences also had a lot to do with the successes of the French, as it did with for the British who, south of the Albert-Bapaume Road, also had considerable success. Also remember that the French army was a lot more experienced at that time. The French had compulsory military service, which meant that the vast majority of their soldiers had at least 2 or 3 years experience, whereas the British army of the time was no longer the professional army of 1914, but was a very green and untested force of citizen soldiers with varying levels of training, officers included.
Did they realise something had gone wrong? Yes, of course they did. Did they learn from it? Yes, they did. Haig insisted, quite uniquely at the time, on receiving 'after action reports' from his subordinates on all operations that took place. These reports were studied, the lessons (what worked and what didn't) were learnt and passed down through the training system to the benefit of the entire BEF.
As for stopping the offensive at the Somme, that was never an option. The offensive had to continue in order to relieve the French at Verdun.
Todd Johnson
Why do you mention you mention the Somme but not the 100 Days.
John Terraine:
‘The toughest assignment in modern British military history (i.e. since the creation of our first real Regular Army, the New Model) has been high command in war against the main body of a main continental enemy. Three British officers have undertaken such a task and brought it to a successful conclusion: the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Lord Haig.
And in that Final Offensive, which ended with a German delegation crossing the lines with a white flag to ask for an armistice, the British Armies under Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig captured 188,700 prisoners and 2840 guns. All the other Allies together, French, Americans, Belgians, captured 196,500 prisoners and 3775 guns. In other words, the British took just under 50% of all the prisoners and just over 40% of all the guns.
That was the achievement of the British Citizen Army; I have called it, more than once, the 'finest hour' of the British Army. There has never been anything like that '100 Days' Campaign' of continuous victory in the whole of our military history. In the words of one who served from 1916 to 1918 and died only recently, Professor C. E. Carrington:
In our thousand years of national history there has been one short period (1916-1918) when Britain possessed the most effective army in the world, and used it to win decisive victory.
The most sinister of all the delusions within the trauma was to lose sight of that.
What was the position of Haig's army on that day? It amounted to nearly two million men of the British Empire - the largest land force in the Empire's history. And they had just reached the end of a 'Hundred Days' Campaign' as glorious and decisive as that of 1815 which concluded the Battle of Waterloo - but infinitely less known.
It was, in fact an unparalleled achievement in the history of the British Army, revealed by the stark statistics. And this was done in nine successive victories which were largely instrumental in bringing the war to an end in 1918 - and a consummation that Haig was determined to bring about.
These victories should be as famous as Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet or Talavera, Salamanca, Vittoria and Waterloo. Instead, they are forgotten and unknown, so I will list them now:
The Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918 ('the black day of the German Army');
The Battle of Albert, 21 August (the day on which Haig told Churchill 'we ought to do our utmost to get a decision this autumn');
The Battle of the Scarpe, 26 August;
The Battles of Havrincourt and Epehy, 12 September (the approaches to the HindenburgLine);
The Breaking of the Hindenburg Line, 27 September - 5 October (35,000 prisoners & 380 guns taken, the British Army's greatest feat of arms in all its history);
The Battle of Flanders, 28 September;
The Second Battle of Le Cateau, 6 October;
The Battle of the Selle, 17 October;
The Battle of the Sambre, 1-11 November.
These were Haig's victories, handsomely acknowledged by Marshal Foch:
Never at any time in history has the British Army achieved greater results in attack than in this unbroken offensive .... The victory was indeed complete, thanks to the Commanders of Armies, Corps and Divisions, thanks above all to the unselfishness, to the wise, loyal and energetic policy of their Commander-in-Chief, who made easy a great combination and sanctioned a prolonged and gigantic effort.’
In 1918, the British Army was the only Allied army capable of mounting a massive and sustained offensive.
How does this make Haig ‘not even close to the best’?
@@giovannipierre5309 After reading Sheffield's 'Forgotten Victory', I know I need to read some Terraine. Where is this quote from?
This clip is from 2013. It's now January, 2022. And these clips keep coming. Historians trying to rewrite history. The sediment in 1935 was correct. Haig was a butcher. The commonwealth soldiers were lions lead by donkeys.
present some evidence then.
It's now April 2023, but none of this should be an obstacle to historians having a grown-up debate, based on evidence. I would prefer history to be written that way, and for prevailing narratives to be challenged, rather than the Donkeys/O What a Lovely War/Blackadder version to continue to go unchallenged.
Haig was generally feted by the country after the war and in the 20's ...... they knew better in those days.
If Haig was such a bloody Genius why was it that most with any sense like the Canadian Corps under General Currie and the Australian Corp under Monash, couldn't wait to escape Haig's clutches fast enough, and then went on to have success after success? Funny how they both wanted to escape Haig's brilliance? Also, why was there so much pressure in Britain, at the time to remove Haig, and it was mainly due to his family's Money which propped Him up and keep him in luxury miles from the front, which he also never visited or even looked at? The Americans certainly wouldn't have any part of either which He tried for also. The man at the end just really said a prayer and hoped for the best, when all is said and done, that's not brilliance it's dumb luck and even fighting a war of attrition it's the other side you want to run out of Men first, not send in wave after wave of Men to be slaughter almost to the Man and then comment "Well they did not give of their best" as He did on the Somme. His tactics were most people's definition of insanity.
All of the criticisms about Haig can be made 10 times over about Zhukov yet Zhukov is one of the greatest generals of the 20th century Haig is deeply flawed bit he is far from the donkey often portrayed and was much more tactically inventive than the likes pf Zhukov ever were.
I don't know how true it is, but l have read that had the war gone into 1919 Monash would very likely been given command of the BEF.
He was certainly a brilliant general the corps level as was Currie.
Why do you think Scottish nationalist called Haig Scotland's greatest general? Because no one killed more Sasseneach than Haig. Told to me by an actual Scottish person
Are you vertically challenged?
That guy was a moron. Haig killed many more Germans.
My Dear Major Pando,
First of all thank you for your kind reply and I congratulate you on your grammar ,Some of the jottings on these sites make you wonder what if any school they went to.. Yes this country although I served in the RAF is and always will be a war mongering country, The assassination of the Arch Duke of Ferdinand was the cause of it really and our lads had to lay down the'yr lives for the connection of the Kaiser Wilhelm and our own royals too.. Also whilst we had few machine guns as apposed to the Germans the soldiers were told to walk not run and were slaughtered My dad told me about it.. It is a disgrace and disgusting that whilst our soldiers were dying Haig and his cronies were dining in silver the bastard and the class system recognised him and Kitchener as heroes , The murderers...
Geoffrey Powell
Yawn.
Reckless “attritional battle” loses wars. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Falkenheyn at Verdun was a "butcher" for attritional battle, Haig at the Somme was merely clever for a 'plan B' contingency. (Or as Haig called it: a 'wearing out' battle.) 420,000 Commonwealth casualties is 'on the job training.' Hooray for apologist spin doctoring...
By 1918, the Michael offensive had failed, Germany was starved of resources in every way, the US was beginning to fight. By 1918 Haig was just 'still there.'
IF Marshal Haig really was interested in the new technologies and weaponry, as this documentary claims, why did he not grasp the need for machine guns and push for their use and distribution? And why would he repeatedly continue to insist until the mid 1930s!! that cavalry were to be BACKED by air and tanks as auxillaries?! Machine guns were the firepower of the infantry and the Germans had one for every platoon. The British one for every company. This to a large degree explains the 1 1/2 -1 losses in the war ON AVERAGE in the war!
And they shrug off the total and unremitting catastrophe of Paeschendale as Oh, yeah well he was not perfect but he won the war. I'd not know whether to laugh or cry at that 'explanation' by mental midgets. Apparently we are supposed to be won over to the argument of his greatness because HE unlike many others was prepared to suffer unnecessarily high casualties to succeed. Casualties of his historic incompetence and lack of vision!
+MegaRaven100 Haig died in 1928.
In the Third Battle of Ypres casualty levels were *lower* than in the Somme.. Paeschendale being only *part* of the Third Battle of Ypres. The two battles took place over about the same amount of ground, with about the same number of divisions, over about the same period of time, yet the Third Battle of Ypres (which we in Britain refer to as Paeschendale) saw the BEF take almost 30% FEWER casualties than the Somme. Despite the fact it was a more open style of warfare, with more profligate use of artillery on both sides... and lets face it, Artillery was the real killer in WWI.
Next, when Haig visitied the experimental tanks while they were in the final stages of their testing, he asked how many could he have, and how soon. These were the damned DEFINITION of new technology. Fine, so they didnt know how to use them correctly in 1916 when they first got their hands on them... but NO ONE knew how to use them in 1916. They were NEW.
Haig said nothing in the 1930s, As KentA Mitchell noted quite correctly he died in 1928.
The Infantry platoon was rebuilt during 1916 and 1917 AROUND a machinegun, namely the Lewis gun. Infantry tactics changed totally, a little known fact is that *all* British Infantry were trained in what the Germans called Stosstruppen tactics by late 1916 and early 1917, not just the Stosstruppen Divisions that the Germans wasted during the 1918 Spring Offensives.
Command and Control sucked in WWI, especially on the offense, because communication sucked. Radios were at best unreliable and were huge to boot, which meant they had to rely on telephones (one of the most dangerous jobs during the Great war was repairing severed telephone lines), pigeons, or the simple expedient of sending a runner back through the barrage that was now coming down... needless to say Runners had a VERY short life expectancy, it was a job actually more dangerous than repairing the telephone lines... which is saying something.
The Germans never really had an effective LIGHT machinegun during WWI, the British did, the Lewis gun, which Haig adopted entusiastically, because a Lewis gun could be operated and moved by a two man team, a Vickers required two men to operate, and 3 men to move... and then slowly. More importantly the Lewis gun could offer fire support to an infantry platoon ON THE OFFENSIVE, which the maxim type guns were too unwieldy to do, and the Vickers was a maxim style gun.
So basically, you claim an extensive military education, fail to learn that Haig Died before the 1930's so could not possibly have advocated the tactics you stated he did in the 1030's, you ignored his desire to get as many tanks as possible, ignoored the fact he backed the Lewis gun to the hilt (and whined when he couldnt get enough of them), were you asleep during this so called military education?
I am thinking so.... as a mere Marine Bioogist can cut holes three miles wide and 5 deep through your so called arguments.
Yes, Haig made mistakes, people paid for those mistakes with their lives. But Haig was also fighting the first truly Industrial war, and he did not have the luxury the Germans had, of sitting on the defensive as much as possible. Th French and British *had* to push German forces from France and Belgium to get a chance of a satisfactory Peace agreement. That means they *had* to fight an offensive war.
And dont say German generals were any better... any general that puts their best troops into a few spearhead divisions then wastes their lives in huge numbers in tactically sound but strategically confused offensives is as bad as you claim Haig is.... and thats what the slaughter of the German Stosstruppen during early 1918 was... the smashing of Germanies *best* troops, by their own commanders.....
Basically you are making the same mistake other people make, you are applying MODERN knowledge and MODERN military tactics to generals who did NOT have the advantage of that knowledge.
To put it into perspective... in 1914 tactics had not changed much since the damned Napoleonic wars....
By 1918, the tactics used are familiar to any modern soldier... modern warfare was BORN in the First World War.
You have some point in that but overstate it . Some major changes HAD happened by 1914. The entire German plan of attack was planned around the use of railways to concentrate forces quickly enough to win (An idea born in the US civil War along with telegraph communications, trenches, submarines, armored ships. barbed wire, machine guns who were used first there; if only in small numbers).
And it was not until WW II that the proper use of armored divisions and tanks was discovered (as proven by the allied disasters in May 1940).
So not quite as simple as you say. And still it does not change the fact that Haig was a disaster although it seems today's politicians for evil purposes are trying to rewrite history and blame anti war sentiment in the 1920's and 30' on the hippies and the 1960's/70's.
Its utter crap. I went to the UK's # 1 Military academy in the 70's with Haig's bronze Statue next to the memorial arch filled with the young men killed by HIS incompetence. He was saved by the Yanks fresh troops.
Haig was as Churchill said 'a terrible choice for commander in Chief;one that we do not want but cannot for political reasons get rid of' (1916!). Churchill was right!
Haig was not a donkey, he was a stubborn jackass. The greater success of the BEF in Belgium and elsewhere was mostly due to subordinate generals trying to break the stalemate of turn of the century warfare. Haig was stubborn to a fault at times, holding on to the strategic and tactical orthodoxy.