Talk:Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Complaints

He should not be praised. He led 60,000 to their death in one day alone. All while he sat in his comfy bed, eating the finest food and living in luxury. He was a fool. It was his fault that the Somme was a failure. No argument can excuse his blatant ignorance and lack of respect for his troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.108.75 (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

FUNNY, WEEKS AGO I HERE POINTED AT THE FACT THAT THIS IDIOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF A MIO. MEN'S DEATH IN FIRST WW - WHY DOENST THIS NOTE APPEAR HERE NUMBAWAN SEPR 21 2005— Preceding unsigned comment added by NUMBAWAN (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the history, the first message on this talk page is yours right there. Are you sure you saved the edit? - Lucky13pjn 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is "responsible" for those deaths, it's the German Army and its leaders. Bastie 21:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

no mention of the firing squads he authorised gaffers10 191005— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.92.183 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it can easily be argued that Mr. Haig was responsible for the deaths of thousands of men, simply because his tactics were uninspiring, and he did not think about his men at all. Research before you comment please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardonnay~enwiki (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

i suggest you heed your own advice Chardonnay and look at the bigger picture. emotions are best left out of history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.124.19 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not happy with the article as it stands then use the edit button at the top of the page and change it. It could clearly be improved, but simply complaining on the talk page won't do anything to help. Leithp 11:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If by "think about his men" you mean "stay on the defensive and wait for the tank to be invented", that would have meant losing the war by default. And incidentally, this is pretty much what the Allies did in WWII. The strategy certainly saved lives, but it had another unfortunate side-effect which I'm sure we're all aware of here. Bastie 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And the unfortunate side-effect was that Germany won WWII by creating and leading the European Union and so did what Hitler wanted by stealth. And the lovely Deutschers are still bombing what few synagogues are left in Germany. MartiniShaw (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The tank was in full usage during the great war, it just happened to be bloody useless as both the allies and the central powers noticed. --213.107.99.19 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Moustan

What "Allies"??? You surely mean only the British and the French, and forgot the Americans and the Red Army.

As regard to Haig, no, we didn't mean "stay on the defensive and wait for the tank to be invented", we expected a minimum of respect for human life. After so many deaths since the first year of the war, even this imbecile should had learnt better how to conduct a offensive without useless sacrifice of life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.3.241 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason that Haig cannot be held solely responsible for the British Empire deaths on the Western Frount is simply because he was not in complete control over his own actions and there are many others who accurately desrve a share of the blame. These include The German Army, The French, who demanded to set the location and time of, most of the attacks that the BEF made, The British Government, Haigs Superiors, who sent an army badly prepared, for the type of war it would be fighting, into combat. and made many foolish and bad decisions, for which Lloyd George, for one, was more than happy to pass the blame where possible, onto the Generals, for decisions which were his responsibility.

As for the reason, Haig did not find a way to conduct an offensive without great loss of life, All of the various armies in WW1 suffered massive casualities making offensives on the Western Frount, those who sugwest that he should have found another way, have an onus on them to show that such tactics wre available too him, and that he refused, without good reason to use those tatics. I have yet to see any such tactics put up, which stand up to critical examination— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.8.65 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much about tactics, he was just incompetent. Take the battle of Somme, for example. First he wastes 1.5 million rounds of artilery ammunition by ordering a completely inefficient bombardment of the German bunkers and trenches, then he suddenly stops the bombardement, which let the Germans know that a major attack was coming, which allowed for them to take up their machine-gun positions. After he stopped the bombardment, he ordered the first wave of british troops to WALK (he actually and directly ordered the troops to walk) accross no-man's land, which was filled with swamps and barbed wire, with 60-150lb. packs. When the German's opened fire with their machine guns, the first wave of british troops were completely obliterated. After news of the elimination of the first wave, Haig just assumed that the british troops were too afraid to attack, and so he ordered the second wave, a battalion coming from Newfoundland, to walk to their deaths like the british wave. And so, five months later, after 600000 deaths on the Allied side... Haig's Somme campaign allowed the Allies to gain a whopping twelve kilometers. Pure incompetence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.146.3 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This version of events is a combination of Blackadder Alan Clark and children's textbooks written in the 1960's. Study of WW1 and the reputation of Haig has moved on and the comments do need to reflect this rather than recite old discredited myths.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.2.197.213 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A utterly Haig biased review As a well read historian, who has attempted to bring some of the truth into this shameful article, and having seen it deleted within 24 hours. I can only assume that the Haig lies must be allowed to stand.

This article is not history, but lies and prevarication. There is no doubt about about what Haig was, to those who bother to study enough about the period.

But carry on lying— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.151.169 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The well worn anti Haig myths are trotted out occasionally on this page. They get deleted not because of bias but because they are based on rubbish pedalled by long discredited historians like Laffin and Clark or even Blackadder. Whether Haig was a great commander of the stature of Wellington is a worthy topic for debate. What is not debatable is that under the leadership of Douglas Haig the British Army won the First World War defeating the best army in the world in the process. He must deserve credit for this. No-one is denying that mistakes were made but ultimatly he succeeded and the task he faced was incredibly difficult. There was really no easy cheap way to defeat the Germans and those who criticise his actions have yet to suggest what else he could have done.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.2.197.213 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh on reading the comment above me. Haig won the first world war did he? The first world war ended in an Armistice, with Haig himself quoting in his diary that the Germany Army "Is nowhere beaten" Haig was planning for a final offensive in 1920 as the end came. Have another read of Denis Winter's Haigs command, for a start, read a few other books as well. You could also consider that in addition to British and Empire troops the French army might, have made some contribution to end of the war, they certainly carried the heavier load. Haig spent the rest of his life after the war falsifying his diary. The result being an exceptional discrepancy between his written and typed diary versions. Leading to an official british history of the war which upholds the myths--84.57.41.29 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)nighthawkx15

It is not true that General Haig was in command in 1918 - Marshall Foch was the allied commander, and tactical (operational) command was in the hands of men such as General Plumer who tended to "reinterpret" the orders of General Haig (see "Plumber: The Soldier's General" by Geoffrey Powell - who is actually a pro Haig writer), whatever successes there were in 1918 were not the work of Douglas Haig.90.194.173.154 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, read something else - Denis Winter's "Haig's Command" is regarded as a travesty by most serious writers, although a trashy book of that kind usually surfaces once every ten years (the last was John Mosier's "Myth of the Great War"), claiming to be iconoclastic but in fact just telling a certain kind of reader what they want to hear. I dare say Haig did sift his diary to show himself in a better light - as do many public figures - but all this has been raked over by serious historians for decades, so it is a bit much to claim that there was still some great cover-up going on. Of course it is an exaggeration to say that Haig "won the war" as some of his more starry-eyed admirers claim, but nonetheless the forces under his command were engaging and driving back the main body of the German army in 1918, at a time when the French, who had indeed borne the main burden earlier in the war and were indeed still occupying a large proportion of the line (much of it quiet sectors like Alsace), were only conducting limited offensives alongside the Americans (it is true that the French took heavy casualties in the summer of 1918 at Second Marne).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They tried an ingenious way of getting round the terribly destructive trench warfare, it was called Gallipolli (probably spelt wrong). If done properly that might of worked but the general leading that was a moron and decided to twiddle his thumbs rather than aggressively advance and take the Turks by surprise. After that disastrous campaign Allied commanders were slightly adverse to alternative tactics, not to mention that technology simply hadnt caught up with the scale of fighting yet. (Bearing it mind that the First World War was a completely different type of war to the one that Haig had won his spurs in).Willski72 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and surely if he was really such a terrible General he would of LOST! Remember that at one point (before the Americans had managed to pour troops in), the Russinas had surrendered and the French mutinied. The fact that the British army didnt join them is nothing short of a miracle. Admittedly he was far from the most inspired General the world has ever seen but he couldnt of been as bad as the other two!Willski72 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My main objection to the article is the continuation of the myth that anyone 'won' in WW1! The 11th November is known as Armistice day because on the 11th November 1918 an Armistice was signed by all parties calling an end to the conflict. Nobody 'won' - but because the Armistice was caused by the Revolution sweeping Germany which led to the abdication of the Kaiser and the creation of the very weak Weimar Republic, the Allied powers 'won' at Versailles. Haig was a butcher with very little respect from the men he commanded who survived. The 'Haig Fund' was formed not from altruism or guilt, but in an effort to recreate the Jingoism which had lead millions to march to their deaths, that Jingoism lives on today in the nauseating Poppy Appeal each November. So many veterans of WW1 were sickened by the Haig Fund they started the Peace Pledge Union and the white poppy appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's your main complaint it's not going to get you very far - the consensus view, at the time and since, is that the Allies won the First World War - as is evidenced by the fact that Germany agreed to humiliating armistice terms: surrendering her fleet, army giving up heavy weapons and retreating behind the Rhine (with the Allies holding the bridges). The Allies were relieved because they didn't foresee that a worse war would come twenty years later, but at the time it seemed like a good idea to avoid further bloodshed.

The idea that Haig was regarded as a "butcher" is an invention from after his death (see discussion on National Army Museum website) - in the 1920s he was popular and respected by most. If you have any figures regarding the relative popularity of the British Legion and the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s (or evidence that the Peace Pledge was really anti-Haig - he was criticised by some in the 1930s but, as noted, it was only really after WW2 that he was turned into a pantomime villain) then please draw them to our attention. I suspect, although I'm willing to be proved wrong, that it was the British Legion who represented the silent majority. Haig had various period vintage views about manliness and patriotism, which indeed played a role in his post-1920 activities along with an officer's paternalism and perhaps an element of guilt which he would never have publicly admitted, but I don't think many people who buy poppies today would regard themselves as "jingoistic".Paulturtle (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with any basic knowledge of what went on at the end of WW1 knows that the terms of the Armistice were not agreed until 6 Months later at the Treaty of Versailles. The German Revolution started with the Mutiny of the German Fleet late in October and by Early November the Kaiser had abdicated and the Government had been overthrown and replaced by Workers and Soldiers Councils in every major German city. Desertions from the Army were at record levels and a Republic was proclaimed. An agreement was made between the Social Democratic leader Ebert and Groener, the Quartermaster of the Army, that the Army would sign the Armistice and return to put down the Revolution - exactly what every European leader wanted to happen, since the Revolution was spreading rapidly across Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace. The counter-counter-counter intuitive pro Haig revisionist who keeps deleting negative information about Haig needs to be kicked out. I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.88.37 (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no the Haig debate

Facts

• 1. No one in any Army had any idea how to fight WW1, experience had shown (Russo-Japanese War) that charging like lunatics was effective, but costly, in other words not really any help at all. All this lions led by donkeys business isn't strictly true because the tactics used were the best available at the time.

• Actually the theory and practice of firepower warfare were rather obvious by late 1914 since they reflected the assumptions which had led to European armies being equipped with weapons designed for high volumes of fire before the war.

• 2. two schools of thought, 'step by step' and the all out attack, Haig was of the later, it was a large scale offensive (all out, quick, not getting bogged down for months) to resume regular warfare and therefore end the war quicker (and save lives). (interestingly enough the years 1914 and 1918, where normal warfare resumed were the most costly, trench warfare saved lives, strange thought). Step by Step would have minimised casualties per day, but as it took so much longer it just turned into a massive slogging match until the enemy gave up basically a pyrrhic victory, so in some ways the all out offensive is the best option (even though it is again costly). There wasn't really any alternative, apart from doing nothing, in which case the Germans were perfectly happy to continue pummelling your lines with artillery.

• Haig, Joffre, Falkenhayn et al. wanted to fight a decisive battle but knew by early 1915 that a long period of indecisive attrition operations would be necessary before the opposing army lost its capacity to resist and became vulnerable to an unlimited offensive. The French gambled in early 1917 that the time was ripe, the Germans made the same gamble in early 1918 and Haig got it right in the summer of 1918. Indecisive battles are the norm when the opponents are evenly matched.

• 3. As regards to the Somme, it was unfortunate, the British were under pressure to relieve the French in Verdun (German plan to "bleed the French white"). They had to be relieved. The British army, with lots of green soldiers would be no match for the experienced Germans, so the British shelled and mined the German lines to such an extent that it was thought that the inexperienced soldiers could advance meeting little resistance. So in the end it was all in the best interests of the troops, even though it wasn't that successful (not enough high explosive shells, were available, and many shells simply didn't explode, it wasn't until late this problem was rectified, perhaps after what had been learnt at the Somme)

• For all the failures, the British part of the Somme offensive captured more ground than previous offensives, inflicted more casualties on the Germans and left the German army in a worse state to continue the war than the British army. The French contribution demonstrated that Falkenhayn's attempt to create the conditions for decisive victory with attritional step-by-step attacks at Verdun was a failure. By attacking in mid-1916, the British made a huge sacrifice for the benefit of the Russian and French armies, which had carried the war to the Germans for two years while the British were preparing.

• 4. to conclude, in the end a mixed approach was adopted incorporating aspects of all out and step by step. But there is no way that this could have been adopted without the previous years experience. It is also important to note that British tactics and strategy were no worse than any other army fighting in the war.

• The means for sequential attacks didn't exist until 1918 when the building of roads, railways, canals and port unloading facilites made the swift movement of troops and equipment, especially artillery ammunition feasible. The "delay" between Messiines Ridge and the start of 3rd Ypres, was determined by the time it took to prepare the area behind Ypres for a vastly larger army and its artillery, which had to wait until the new front line beyond Messines Ridge had been connected to the infrastructure behind it (like laying water pipes to the new front line and extending light railways).

• popular history gives the impression that men were purposely sent out to run in front of machine guns and that eventually sheer weight of numbers would pull through, this is in fact not the case. Before around 1917 creeping barrages were almost impossible to organise meaning that the barrage would have to take place before the troops advanced, so there wasn't really any alternative apart from running across no mans land. German trenches also utilized a formidable defence in depth system, a system still used today. It was Falkenhayn who in 1914 had started a war of attrition, if anything all the blame for what happened in WW1 should be shifted to him.

• Creeping barrages were thought of in 1915 and had become routine by the end of the Battle of the Somme; defence in depth also began then, to dilute the stupendous artillery firepower that the Franco-British armies used on the Somme. The Franco-British copied Falkenhayn and succeeded where he failed, because their means were so much greater. Most of the warfare of 1939-1945 and the Korean wars followed the same pattern.Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

be careful what you read, people who write history books have motives and their own points of view! (especially 1960's people)

• Quite agree, there's an obvious "stab-in-the-front" myth about Allied failings all being due to inept British generals, which was invented by Churchill and Lloyd George - they weren't culpable, they were only giving orders.Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

References

Sources 'De Groot' while Footnotes 'Groot'?

Maybe among profesional historians De Groot and his work are simply known as the 'Groot'. If 'De Groot' and 'Groot' actually do denote the same source (only guessing, though. 'Groot' might really be the Belgian 'Smith'...) they ought to be the same (be it with or without 'De') in both the Footnotes and the Sources sections. Can't change it myself, though: I don't know whether it's 'Groot' or 'De Groot'.Korinthus (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"Two million" British casualties?

The lead currently reads:

He was nicknamed "Butcher Haig" for the two million British casualties endured under his command.

But according to World War I, total British causalities of the war were only 1.15 million. Looking at the table in World War I casualties, that figure could be a little higher depending on how you classify e.g. civilian causalities and casualties from former British colonies, but not enough to get it to two million. I can't access the source from The Times; is it exaggerating? – Joe (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References

British military deaths in the Great War were about 886,000. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/deaths-first-and-second-world-wars/ With the far smaller number of colonial and Dominion losses, it was about a million. The total number of casualties including injured and captured was probably well over two million, so that figure is meaningless and shouldn't be in the article. (My grandfather served through all four years on the Western Front and was wounded three times, so he would appear three times in the total casualty statistics.) The French and the Germans came off rather worse. Haig was not known as 'Butcher Haig' at the time and the cited source is dubious and contentious. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)