NationStates Jolt Archive

ok yesterday i was on the climate march in london, and as we walked down past downing street towards trafalgar square, i noticed the cenotaph, then a statue for the women of the world wars, then, lo and behold, a statue glorifying field marshall haig as a noble and heroic leader... i was stunned. obvioulsy it was made after the first world war in a fit of patriotic fervour, by people who had never seen haigs command of the army up close. this man was a buffoon. his command of the british and empire troops led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young men for no gain whatsoever. that he has a statue to honour him, let alone next to the memorial in honour of the hundreds of thousands of men he ordered to their deaths, disgusts me. why should this upper class toff, who made no sacrifice whatsoever, still now be honoured in this way? thoughts?

Okay, this kind of thing annoys me.

HAIG WAS BRILIANT.

Unlike the pansy-ass generals and politicians of today, he understood that you can't break a trench war stalemate without losing a lot of men. People today just don't look at it in a vaguely sensible way. What was he supposed to do? If he hadn't given the orders he did we would have lost Verdun, and opened the way to the ports. Bye-bye war effort. Haig did what was necessary. Haig was not some Buffoon, he was a great tactician, but the options open to you when it is two straight lines of trenches are limited to: run at them, or run at them after shooting them for a bit. His attacks did in fact result in gains, and they did help the war effort a lot.

Quite recently I've been studying WWI, and Haig specifically, and he's the victim of slander from the politicians of the time. It's unfortunate that people today are still falling for it.

Haig was neither good, nor bad. He was a product of the Victorian style of military leadership. He was stubborn, close-minded and used two-dimensional tactics without any sort of initiative or imagination. But then most senior officers of the time, with the possible exception of several of the German commanders, were of the same mould. Haig was fighting a modern war using Victorian-style tactics in a situation he could not fully comprehend.

As to whether he should have a statue by the Cenotaph...thats a tricky question. I guess it's a debatable point. Personally I'd say no, but then thats just me.

I read an article some time ago concerning Haig and it made several points concerning Lloyd George's memoirs which if i remember rightly, blamed/criticised Haig (for his own political motives) ...and thus lead to the widespread negative view of Haig that is pervalent today.
Even if the memorial to him was put up back before an objective view of what he did could be established i still think we should look at both sides of what he did and not just assume that his command was a) foolish and b) could have been carried out any differently.
After all, casualties for every nation in WW1 were horrendous - are we to assume that every top commander of every nation was crap at their job?

After all, casualties for every nation in WW1 were horrendous - are we to assume that every top commander of every nation was crap at their job?

Well the bit where their tactics didn't change even when they were patently stupid seems to imply this. Both sides had a golden opportunity to invent combined arms warfare and didn't, they just kept throwing mud at the wall.

Well the bit where their tactics didn't change even when they were patently stupid seems to imply this. Both sides had a golden opportunity to invent combined arms warfare and didn't, they just kept throwing mud at the wall.

"He faced a huge problem, commanding the largest British army in history at a time when war was undergoing profound changes," says Sheffield. "It is clear that Haig made many mistakes. But he learned lessons from them, and he applied those when it mattered to pursue the war to a victorious conclusion."

not the original article that i read but written by the same guy (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,1441421,00.html)

The thing is they did change their tactics. Again and again, but this was the first static war. Nobody knew what to do, so they just used the tactics they had for hundreds of years. Just think, without WWI we wuldn't have the tank. There, an example of new thinking produced by the Great War. The problem with all the ideas they had was that they weren't very good, so they had no real choice about what to do.

i disagree

haigs performance during the war showed that he was completely out of touch with his troops, continually ordering attacks which followed the same tactics as every other previous attack (preliminary bombardment that failed to destroy the enemy positions and served to alert the enemy to an imminent attack, followed by frontal assault). he used the tank as soon as it was available in 1916, before it was completely ready for service, while the developers of the tank were hoping that it would remain secret until it was perfected, so that it could be used en masse in a surprise action. im sure, with a little bit of imagination and humility, a lot of lives could have been saved.

just for fun, heres a transcription of a scene in blackadder goes forth...

Darling: ...A German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans.
Melchett: You look surprised, Blackadder.
Edmund: I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans.
Melchett: Well, of course we have! How else do you think the battles are
directed?
Edmund: Our battles are directed, sir?
Melchett: Well, of course they are, Blackadder - directed according to the
Grand Plan.
Edmund: Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until every-
one's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise,
Alan?
Melchett: Great Scott! Even you know it!

Both sides had a golden opportunity to invent combined arms warfare

Combined with WHAT? Infantry were the only thing that there was (apart from cavalry, and even more people would complain if cavalry had been used on the somme) until 1the tank was invented.

And there was NOTHING ELSE TO DO. WW1 could not have been fought in any other way.

Its such a pity people only see the officers from WW1 as like those from Blackadder goes forth


EDIT hahah, the above post wasnt there when I began mine :P

just for fun, heres a transcription of a scene in blackadder goes forth...

Darling: ...A German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans.
Melchett: You look surprised, Blackadder.
Edmund: I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans.
Melchett: Well, of course we have! How else do you think the battles are
directed?
Edmund: Our battles are directed, sir?
Melchett: Well, of course they are, Blackadder - directed according to the
Grand Plan.
Edmund: Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until every-
one's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise,
Alan?
Melchett: Great Scott! Even you know it!

you're backing up your argument with Blackadder excerpts :confused:

j/k

you're backing up your argument with Blackadder excerpts :confused:

j/k

i hold stephen fry in very high regard...:P

apart from cavalry, and even more people would complain if cavalry had been used on the somme

I thought cavalry were used in the Somme, which was partly why it was so disastrously crap. That and it was pretty crappy anyway.

If not the Somme then I'm sure they were used at some point.

They were. They were used to back up the floundering infantry attacks.

They were. They were used to back up the floundering infantry attacks.

To great effect:rolleyes: :confused:

Damn straight, they stopped hundreds of bullets in mid-air!