Sun Tzu: and the Battle of Britain

[Clay_Allison]

Sorry to thread hijack, but I have to differ with Maestro here. Haig was absolutely NOT an arrogant butcher, and 'lions led by donkeys' is an appalling piece of revisionism which has been raised to the level of dogma.

Haig and every other general on both sides of that war had entered on the war in 1914 expecting it to be like every recent European War - short, violent and decisive. What they got was a war which they had not learned to fight. WWI could not be fought by the art of warfare current in 1914 - commanders were forced to adapt, and they did this incredibly well. British, French, German and Russian commanders constantly refined their assault tactics, which led to some spectacular breakthroughs - the first week of Fall Gehricht at Verdun, the opening weeks of the Brusilov Offensive, and the opening weeks of the German Peace Offensive immediately spring to mind. In all of these cases, exploitation of the advance proved impossible because the technology simply did not exist at the time to keep supplies moving forward as fast as the assault troops. Nor did technology exist to allow either side to effectively flank the trench system, anchored as it was by the sea at one end and the Alps at the other.

Haig, and the other generals who fought that war, were writing the rules as they went along - they had no other choice. There were moments of exceptionally poor judgment, particularly around the Passchedaele campaign. I won't deny that, although I would say that Market Garden is just one example of equally poor judgment being exercised in another war. I believe it is grossly unfair though to characterise Haig, or any other WWI general as arrogant and insensitive to thier losses - Haig in particular, found himself unable to visit field hospitals because of the effect the sight of his wounded men had on him. The only exception I would make is Falkenhayn - his plan for Fall Gehricht was little short of a war crime and he should have been punished for it, IMHO.

So in conclusion, I think modern historians are too willing to put the boot into WWI generals who are not here to defend their choices, and are too willing to criticise without first understanding that the war which began in 1914 was one which simply had not been prepared for in the preceding years because no-one had foreseen it's coming.

I don't know if Haig was at fault, but who ever was stupid enough to walk 65,000 British soldiers into machine gun fire on a single day should have led the next charge solo.

Trained or not, I think I'd have the sense to stop murdering my own men for zero gains.

 

[Maestro]

Haig, and the other generals who fought that war, were writing the rules as they went along - they had no other choice. There were moments of exceptionally poor judgment, particularly around the Passchedaele campaign. I won't deny that, although I would say that Market Garden is just one example of equally poor judgment being exercised in another war. I believe it is grossly unfair though to characterise Haig, or any other WWI general as arrogant and insensitive to thier losses - Haig in particular, found himself unable to visit field hospitals because of the effect the sight of his wounded men had on him. The only exception I would make is Falkenhayn - his plan for Fall Gehricht was little short of a war crime and he should have been punished for it, IMHO.

I know Haig couldn't stand visiting hospitals/battlefields. That's why he was (in my opinion) a poor general. In a battle in particular (don't remember exactly, I think it was Paschendeale), Haig thought his plan was so perfect that he couldn't believe the reports stating that his first assaults had failed and decided to send in a third wave of attackers... Who got ripped to shreds by the German machine guns' fire.

If he had visited the battlefield (as many generals do), he would have seen that his assaults had failed and wouldn't have sent in an other wave.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I know Haig couldn't stand visiting hospitals/battlefields. That's why he was (in my opinion) a poor general. In a battle in particular (don't remember exactly, I think it was Paschendeale), Haig thought his plan was so perfect that he couldn't believe the reports stating that his first assaults had failed and decided to send in a third wave of attackers... Who got ripped to shreds by the German machine guns' fire.

If he had visited the battlefield (as many generals do), he would have seen that his assaults had failed and wouldn't have sent in an other wave.

Yeah, that's the guy I was thinking of. He murdered more Englishmen than Hitler.

 

[BombTaxi]

I don't know if Haig was at fault, but who ever was stupid enough to walk 65,000 British soldiers into machine gun fire on a single day should have led the next charge solo.

Trained or not, I think I'd have the sense to stop murdering my own men for zero gains.

Point is, you can say that with hindsight. Haig didn't have a better a stratagem available at the time - he had been told to put an attack in to get the Germans away from Verdun - so he did it the best way he knew how. Although it was a disaster, it was never repeated on the same scale again. The casualties on the first day of the Somme were (thankfully), a one-off, and subsequent British operations did not incur such high losses.

What Haig did was not 'murder'. It was exactly what every other commander in that war (Americans included) did. They attacked. It was impossible to flank a trench line running from the Channel to the Alps, the only way to break it was to go straight at it. Not pretty, not smart, but what other choice was there?

And Maestro, Haig was all too aware of what the assaults were doing to his men - but he had no choice. The location and timing of offensives was largely dictated by outside factors. For example, the Somme was dictated by the need to relieve pressure on Verdun, and Passchendaele was much needed to keep the Germans off the French Army when it's moral collapsed following the Nivelle offensive. Haig could not refuse to attack - if he did, he would just be replaced by someone with 'more guts'.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Point is, you can say that with hindsight. Haig didn't have a better a stratagem available at the time - he had been told to put an attack in to get the Germans away from Verdun - so he did it the best way he knew how. Although it was a disaster, it was never repeated on the same scale again. The casualties on the first day of the Somme were (thankfully), a one-off, and subsequent British operations did not incur such high losses.

What Haig did was not 'murder'. It was exactly what every other commander in that war (Americans included) did. They attacked. It was impossible to flank a trench line running from the Channel to the Alps, the only way to break it was to go straight at it. Not pretty, not smart, but what other choice was there?

And Maestro, Haig was all too aware of what the assaults were doing to his men - but he had no choice. The location and timing of offensives was largely dictated by outside factors. For example, the Somme was dictated by the need to relieve pressure on Verdun, and Passchendaele was much needed to keep the Germans off the French Army when it's moral collapsed following the Nivelle offensive. Haig could not refuse to attack - if he did, he would just be replaced by someone with 'more guts'.

I'll tell you what else there was to do, infiltration tactics, anti-machinegun infantry tactics, all of which the British generals were too lazy to train their soldiers to do. They wanted to just throw men into the fire until the enemy ran out of ammunition.

 

[BombTaxi]

Clay, I'd just like to put it on record that I find your statement that Haig murdered more Englishmen than Hitler deeply offensive. You should perhaps be thankful that your own country did not have to go through what mine did, and be mindful of the sacrifices made by millions of Englishmen and Frenchmen while the US still sat in splendid isolation across the Atlantic.

I also believe that your statement that British generals were 'too lazy' to train their men properly and simply wished to throw them at the machineguns betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject you are discussing. ALL sides during the Great War were challenged by the difficulties of breaking the stalemate on the Western Front, and they all experienced extremely costly failures - perhaps you should read up on the activities of other armies rather than making sweeping generalisations based on the morning of a single day of a single battle. The tank was specifically devised by the British as a means of breaking the stalemate, and it's potential in this role was clearly demonstrated at Cambrai and in the later offensives of the war. A general who simply wanted to 'murder' his men would not have bothered to deploy tanks, or train his men how to work with them - which is exactly what Haig did, as well as making numerous changes in the employment of artillery to maximise it's effect on the front line.

And please, please do not dare to compare a British general to Hitler again. If I compared Eisenhower in the same way, you would no doubt want me banned. I find your behaviour crass and offensive and shows a total lack of respect for Haig as an individual and also for the officers who worked with him to bring the War to a successful conclusion.

Thanks

BT

 

[Maestro]

And Maestro, Haig was all too aware of what the assaults were doing to his men - but he had no choice. The location and timing of offensives was largely dictated by outside factors. For example, the Somme was dictated by the need to relieve pressure on Verdun, and Passchendaele was much needed to keep the Germans off the French Army when it's moral collapsed following the Nivelle offensive. Haig could not refuse to attack - if he did, he would just be replaced by someone with 'more guts'.

No, but he could have ordered his men to "run" instead of "walk" to the attack.

At the Battle of Ypres, Haig ordered a complete regiment, the New-Foundland regiment, to walk to the assault. The regiment took 90% casuality. A German officer even wrote about the New-Foundlanders : "The only thing that could prevent them from going farter was that they run out of men."

And it happened again in other battles. It is written in many books that British troops were "walking" instead of "running".

 

[Clay_Allison]

Clay, I'd just like to put it on record that I find your statement that Haig murdered more Englishmen than Hitler deeply offensive. You should perhaps be thankful that your own country did not have to go through what mine did, and be mindful of the sacrifices made by millions of Englishmen and Frenchmen while the US still sat in splendid isolation across the Atlantic.

I also believe that your statement that British generals were 'too lazy' to train their men properly and simply wished to throw them at the machineguns betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject you are discussing. ALL sides during the Great War were challenged by the difficulties of breaking the stalemate on the Western Front, and they all experienced extremely costly failures - perhaps you should read up on the activities of other armies rather than making sweeping generalisations based on the morning of a single day of a single battle. The tank was specifically devised by the British as a means of breaking the stalemate, and it's potential in this role was clearly demonstrated at Cambrai and in the later offensives of the war. A general who simply wanted to 'murder' his men would not have bothered to deploy tanks, or train his men how to work with them - which is exactly what Haig did, as well as making numerous changes in the employment of artillery to maximise it's effect on the front line.

And please, please do not dare to compare a British general to Hitler again. If I compared Eisenhower in the same way, you would no doubt want me banned. I find your behaviour crass and offensive and shows a total lack of respect for Haig as an individual and also for the officers who worked with him to bring the War to a successful conclusion.

Thanks

BT

You misunderstand me. I am EXTREMELY mindful of the sacrifice of the young men who were treated as cannon fodder by the aging aristocracy of both sides. I have said on many occasions that the British soldier and sailor was man-for-man superior to any other. I have read a great deal on the subject and I believe that Haig was heartless and held his soldiers lives in contempt. I hate the man for what he did to a generation fo people that I have the utmost respect for and I have no more love for Hindenburg(Germany) or Pershing(USA), who were only less successful butchering their own countrymen, but no less willing.

I have been pro-war all my life, and considered it the right way to solve a problem many times. WWI was the worst war in my mind, that was ever fought, and consisted of and endless meat grinder and exemplified the heartlessness of the old monarchies towards young men. They didn't give them a chance because they didn't give a damn, and I don't mind if you disagree.

Haig was not called the "Butcher of the Somme" by only a few, he died warm in his bed and I wonder if he lost a night's sleep about the poor young men he threw straight into machine-gun fire, killed without an inch of ground gained because he couldn't think of a better idea and didn't have the guts to resign.

 

[Maestro]

Good point, there.