One point about the Somme - it was not fought for no reason - About 70km to the south the French at Verdun had already been in a very similar battle and needed (I mean REALLY needed) the British to launch an attack further North to make the German move reserve divisions and resources and possibly abandon their attacks at Verdun. The Somme DID achieve that - 6 German divisions were rerouted away from Verdun to stiffen the German lines in the Somme. Haig assured the French that he would attack in force, but not 1 minute before his army was ready (Hence the July start - over 6 weeks after the date requested by the French - in 1916 the British army was still rather "green" and needed more experience - "Kitchener's Divisions" were still arriving on the Western Front, and some had to be sent to "quieter" areas to first gain experience and second as a show of force to discourage the Germans from launching attacks there to divert any British reinforcements from the Somme. Verdun, by then was, as Ludendorff stated "Bleeding the French Army dry" (Over 1 million casualties by June from the first attack in March). The problem was, French resistance at Verdun was, in turn, bleeding the German Army involved almost as dry.... So when the Somme began, German pressure on the French lines at Verdun, eased significantly quite soon aftwards.
Hig was a serious commander operating in unimaginable circumstances navigating an entirely new kind of warfare as it was being invented second by second before him, prior to the technology to cope with the military demands existing. And, in the end, he won.
@@anthonyeaton5153 France and Britain won, but Haig didn't. He was never CinC, and was removed from direct control of battle in March 1918, after three years of attritional war studded with blunders, such as his failure to follow up on the one occasion when a breakthrough was possible, at Cambrai. The "Hundred Days" was planned and fought entirely by others, and it was that campaign that broke the German army, not, as Haig falsely claimed, the slaughters of 1916 and 1917. Haig was at best a determined plodder, and Third Ypres was a hideous demonstration of how disastrous that can be.
@@puffin51 FM Earl Haig - German Military Opinion “The circumstances that he never could act really independently, but always had to make his decisions subject to conditions imposed on him, is no reason to deny him the position of a commander-in-chief. Dependence on others was often the fate of great commanders. What is more important is whether his actions were conducted with strategic ability, firm will, strength of character, acceptance of responsibility and political insight. Haig possessed all these qualities and used them in “harmonious combination“ as Clausewitz requires of a great commander. By means of these powers he saved France in 1916 and 1917, and pre-eminently on that historic day, the 26th of March 1918. Finally: if the ultimate victory over the Central Powers was not accomplished on the battlefield, but was gained on quite another plane, yet in the last three years of the war Haig contributed the most to prevent a German victory. Thus he really remained ‘master of the field’.” “Translated from ‘Heerfuhrer des Weltkrieges (Great Commanders of the World War),’ issued by the ‘Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Wehrpolitik und Wehrwissenschaften,’ The equivalent of our Royal United services institution. It contains excellent appreciations of ten great commanders of 1914-1918 by different hands. The selected ten are the younger Moltke, Joffre, Falkenhayn, Conrad, Alexeiev, Enver, Cadorna, Haig, Foch and Hindenburg-Ludendorff. The Grand Duke Nicholas, Maréchal Petain and General Diaz are not included and neither Sir John French nor Nivelle.” Copied from pp 149-150 “Haig - Master of the Field” by Maj Gen Sir John Davidson, Director of Operations in France 1916-1918, first published 1953, reprinted in 2010 by Pen & Sword Military
The interviewer stated that 400,000 British soldiers died on the Somme. Wrong! C94,000 died. According to Gordon Corrigan c74 percent came out of the battle uninjured.
Most of the Bad press about Haig derives from Lloyd George's Autobiography. Lloyd Georged disliked Haig from the start (Not a surprise - He hated Sir John French too) and did everything he could to undermine him, including almost losing the War by withholding badly needed reinforcements in the UK in the later months of 1917 and into 1918. He never forgave Haig for forcing him to back down and send those troops to France after the Germans Launched their 1918 offensive - Operation Michael, which very nearly broke the Allies apart and closed to within vicinty of the parts achieved by the 1914 offensive, 4 years before. (Essentially Haig sent a message to Lloyd George that he would forst tell the French (GOVERNMENT & Foch) WHY there were no fresh troops and then Resign as the British CinC.) Politically, this would have meant the end of Lloyd George as Prime Minister (and politically if they lost the war). Lloyd George backed down and began a hasty mass reinforcement from England just in time to salvage the situation.
The Somme took the pressure off the French at Verdun. Germany had to fight both battles plus the losses they took in the East. They put out peace feelers to Wilson but Wilson did not manage to set up a peace conference.
At "The Somme" it was more of a case that the Donkeys were being led by Lions. On the 1st of July, the British Army was under trained and incapable of the level of firepower and movement displayed by the Regulars in late 1914. By the end of the battle, they had just about broken the German Army and had achieved a higher level of tactical proficiency.
The somme was part of a joint Franco-British offensive to try and push the Germans back. So was it pointless? The French actually conducted Verdun at the same time for the agreed purpose. The point of war is to attack and defeat one's enemy, so pointless? Hardly. By 1916, the Entente and Germans had been bogged down on the Western Front and wanted a natural breakthrough. It was an attack due to bad planning and execution didn't turn out as planned. The Somme was a loose draw, whilst Verdun conducted mostly by the French was a French win. Not all attacks that fail are necessarily pointless, especially if there are sound tactical or strategical goals. Market Garden in WW2 was a failure but then completely understandable in that context as the Allies wanted to enter Germany. The Battle of the Bulge was understandable though, even though it never had a chance of succeeding. The same can be said of the Battle of Britain from that German standpoint.
Haig was like Churchill the man for the times he beat the Germans as did Churchill it's good that the British Empire had two proud Scots and English in charge at these dire times 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
There is no practical difference between Haig and Luigi Cadorna. We rightly condemn the fool that was the latter, it is right to do the same for the former.
An astonishing assessment of Haig who was truly a butcher. Class ridden and with no empathy for anyone other than those of his own class. A disgrace to our country and I reject any attempt to eulogise him. Damn Haig in whose hands the worst slaughter of British men has ever occurred to no effect whatsoever
to no effect whatever except that of decisive and complete victory over the strongest enemy they ever faced. When I read @johnarmstrong3782's comment I am afraid I was reminded of Aneurin Bevan's remark "That was not an argument. That was a spasm"
I judge people in charge to what they're like themselves as a judge of character. Grant might have conducted the American Civil War to victory although he was no good at judging men himself. Here Haig comes undone, is my own argument for him not being a lion. French was despised by Haig, while someone like Churchill thought French's leadership qualities were unsurpassed and that with the knowledge of the heavy casualties after the battle of Loos. As for The Somme, John Keegan wasn't far of the mark when writing “the battle was the greatest tragedy… of their national military history” and “marked the end of an age of vital optimism in British life that has never been recovered.” So much was lost for the leader at the very top to be so entirely witless and totally uninventive
One point about the Somme - it was not fought for no reason - About 70km to the south the French at Verdun had already been in a very similar battle and needed (I mean REALLY needed) the British to launch an attack further North to make the German move reserve divisions and resources and possibly abandon their attacks at Verdun. The Somme DID achieve that - 6 German divisions were rerouted away from Verdun to stiffen the German lines in the Somme. Haig assured the French that he would attack in force, but not 1 minute before his army was ready (Hence the July start - over 6 weeks after the date requested by the French - in 1916 the British army was still rather "green" and needed more experience - "Kitchener's Divisions" were still arriving on the Western Front, and some had to be sent to "quieter" areas to first gain experience and second as a show of force to discourage the Germans from launching attacks there to divert any British reinforcements from the Somme. Verdun, by then was, as Ludendorff stated "Bleeding the French Army dry" (Over 1 million casualties by June from the first attack in March). The problem was, French resistance at Verdun was, in turn, bleeding the German Army involved almost as dry.... So when the Somme began, German pressure on the French lines at Verdun, eased significantly quite soon aftwards.
for people who want to know more, Gary Sheffield's lectures on youtube on excellent ways to learn about Haig's strengths and weaknesses as a commander
His lectures are great
Hig was a serious commander operating in unimaginable circumstances navigating an entirely new kind of warfare as it was being invented second by second before him, prior to the technology to cope with the military demands existing. And, in the end, he won.
He didn’t win tho.
@@CuckFinnWho won the war? France and Britain and Haig was the CinC.
@@anthonyeaton5153 France and Britain won, but Haig didn't. He was never CinC, and was removed from direct control of battle in March 1918, after three years of attritional war studded with blunders, such as his failure to follow up on the one occasion when a breakthrough was possible, at Cambrai. The "Hundred Days" was planned and fought entirely by others, and it was that campaign that broke the German army, not, as Haig falsely claimed, the slaughters of 1916 and 1917. Haig was at best a determined plodder, and Third Ypres was a hideous demonstration of how disastrous that can be.
@@puffin51 FM Earl Haig - German Military Opinion
“The circumstances that he never could act really independently, but always had to make his decisions subject to conditions imposed on him, is no reason to deny him the position of a commander-in-chief. Dependence on others was often the fate of great commanders. What is more important is whether his actions were conducted with strategic ability, firm will, strength of character, acceptance of responsibility and political insight. Haig possessed all these qualities and used them in “harmonious combination“ as Clausewitz requires of a great commander. By means of these powers he saved France in 1916 and 1917, and pre-eminently on that historic day, the 26th of March 1918. Finally: if the ultimate victory over the Central Powers was not accomplished on the battlefield, but was gained on quite another plane, yet in the last three years of the war Haig contributed the most to prevent a German victory. Thus he really remained ‘master of the field’.”
“Translated from ‘Heerfuhrer des Weltkrieges (Great Commanders of the World War),’ issued by the ‘Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Wehrpolitik und Wehrwissenschaften,’ The equivalent of our Royal United services institution. It contains excellent appreciations of ten great commanders of 1914-1918 by different hands. The selected ten are the younger Moltke, Joffre, Falkenhayn, Conrad, Alexeiev, Enver, Cadorna, Haig, Foch and Hindenburg-Ludendorff. The Grand Duke Nicholas, Maréchal Petain and General Diaz are not included and neither Sir John French nor Nivelle.”
Copied from pp 149-150 “Haig - Master of the Field” by Maj Gen Sir John Davidson, Director of Operations in France 1916-1918, first published 1953, reprinted in 2010 by Pen & Sword Military
Field Marshall Haig was a Great Scottish Leader!
The interviewer stated that 400,000 British soldiers died on the Somme. Wrong! C94,000 died. According to Gordon Corrigan c74 percent came out of the battle uninjured.
Most of the Bad press about Haig derives from Lloyd George's Autobiography. Lloyd Georged disliked Haig from the start (Not a surprise - He hated Sir John French too) and did everything he could to undermine him, including almost losing the War by withholding badly needed reinforcements in the UK in the later months of 1917 and into 1918. He never forgave Haig for forcing him to back down and send those troops to France after the Germans Launched their 1918 offensive - Operation Michael, which very nearly broke the Allies apart and closed to within vicinty of the parts achieved by the 1914 offensive, 4 years before. (Essentially Haig sent a message to Lloyd George that he would forst tell the French (GOVERNMENT & Foch) WHY there were no fresh troops and then Resign as the British CinC.) Politically, this would have meant the end of Lloyd George as Prime Minister (and politically if they lost the war). Lloyd George backed down and began a hasty mass reinforcement from England just in time to salvage the situation.
The Somme took the pressure off the French at Verdun. Germany had to fight both battles plus the losses they took in the East. They put out peace feelers to Wilson but Wilson did not manage to set up a peace conference.
The donkeys are the ones who looked at him as he was one
Amen brother!
At "The Somme" it was more of a case that the Donkeys were being led by Lions. On the 1st of July, the British Army was under trained and incapable of the level of firepower and movement displayed by the Regulars in late 1914. By the end of the battle, they had just about broken the German Army and had achieved a higher level of tactical proficiency.
The somme was part of a joint Franco-British offensive to try and push the Germans back. So was it pointless? The French actually conducted Verdun at the same time for the agreed purpose. The point of war is to attack and defeat one's enemy, so pointless? Hardly. By 1916, the Entente and Germans had been bogged down on the Western Front and wanted a natural breakthrough. It was an attack due to bad planning and execution didn't turn out as planned. The Somme was a loose draw, whilst Verdun conducted mostly by the French was a French win. Not all attacks that fail are necessarily pointless, especially if there are sound tactical or strategical goals. Market Garden in WW2 was a failure but then completely understandable in that context as the Allies wanted to enter Germany. The Battle of the Bulge was understandable though, even though it never had a chance of succeeding. The same can be said of the Battle of Britain from that German standpoint.
Haig was like Churchill the man for the times he beat the Germans as did Churchill it's good that the British Empire had two proud Scots and English in charge at these dire times 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Lmao😂
WTF: Donkeys admiring a Donkey with an appropriate Edwardian deference ?. Or are they just having a good laugh at the gullible.
Shallow, prejudiced, ignorant, know-nothing idiot.
Unconvincing..
There is no practical difference between Haig and Luigi Cadorna. We rightly condemn the fool that was the latter, it is right to do the same for the former.
There is a difference between Cadorna and Haig. Haig was adaptable, Cadorna was not.
Wow. Such depth of understanding. Where are your sources, where is your evidence for this intellectual masterstroke.
@@petergaskin1811@Zealith hasn’t responded. I bet he’s still in the NAAFI bar 🤔🤫😉
An astonishing assessment of Haig who was truly a butcher. Class ridden and with no empathy for anyone other than those of his own class. A disgrace to our country and I reject any attempt to eulogise him. Damn Haig in whose hands the worst slaughter of British men has ever occurred to no effect whatsoever
to no effect whatever except that of decisive and complete victory over the strongest enemy they ever faced. When I read @johnarmstrong3782's comment I am afraid I was reminded of Aneurin Bevan's remark "That was not an argument. That was a spasm"
Eeeh naw he wasn’t
A military clerk, collecting a handsome pension riding a fine new horse passing houses of men still buried in the mud of the Somme.
Shallow, prejudiced, ignorant, know-nothing idiot.
Monash and Currie were lions. Haig was a housecat
I judge people in charge to what they're like themselves as a judge of character. Grant might have conducted the American Civil War to victory although he was no good at judging men himself. Here Haig comes undone, is my own argument for him not being a lion. French was despised by Haig, while someone like Churchill thought French's leadership qualities were unsurpassed and that with the knowledge of the heavy casualties after the battle of Loos. As for The Somme, John Keegan wasn't far of the mark when writing “the battle was the greatest tragedy… of their national military history” and “marked the end of an age of vital optimism in British life that has never been recovered.” So much was lost for the leader at the very top to be so entirely witless and totally uninventive
1st Comment
1st
A lion??? Anything but.
Boring!
So don’t watch
So watch something else.
@@jacobprice2579 No!
@@petergaskin1811 Shut up! I already did!
Haig should have faced war crimes.. It's absolutely amazing how British history can turn a total incompetent. Into some kind of HERO...... DISGUSTING
He literally won the war in 1918.
Using nineteenth century tactics in a twentieth century war, totally incompetent. Saying that he’d do well in the current russian army.
For what?
@@daniellewis3270 which "19th century tactics" did he use?
Shallow, prejudiced, ignorant, know-nothing idiot.