Comments on: Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig: World War I’s Worst General

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:50:36 +0000

The battle of the Somme was designed to relieve pressure on the French. It relieved pressure on the French. Therefore Haig achieved the aims put to him. If you can think of another way of relieving pressure on the French I’m sure everyone would be delighted to hear it.

By: Dr Rj Daw

Dr Rj Daw — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:55:24 +0000

Haig, should be remembered as an egotist of the highest order, insightless and odious in his lack of foresight. I personally, feel nauseus upon mention of his name. Churchill and Haig et al should all have been Court Marshalled… For Crimes against humainty…Ibid

By: Joseph S

Joseph S — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:46:06 +0000

Haig was a bitch.

By: Beaviz

Beaviz — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:56:36 +0000

Why do you attack Haig so viciously. Nivelle and several Russian commanders was much worse than Haig.

Haig had his faults, but defense had over 100 years been improved, the attack was still based on Napoleon-tactics.

So faulting Haig for being clueless, is like faulting him for not ordering Navy SEALs parachuting behind enemy lines to conduct sabotage.

Such tactics wasn’t invented yet. And Somme was ordered by Foch, not Haig. WWI was a war of attrition, and everyone knows that.

Haig was a competent general. And he advocated the dragoon role for cavalry, dismount to fight The original role.. Cumbersome, but look at the cars then. The T-Ford didn’t even exist.

By: walter coulthard

walter coulthard — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:08:51 +0000

What is missing in these notes is the recognition of the stategic genius of the Canadian general Currie . It was he who organized the remarkable capture of Vimy ridge . So good was he at strategy and the fighting qalities of the canadian troops with superior leadership that they were the lead troops in future battless .Haig was hopeless and the ineptituteof the upper class officer class so hopeless that at the end of the war the class system began its decline

By: bob maris

bob maris — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:41:47 +0000

If you ever read Haig’s final summary of the war (a written document presented to King or Parliament, I forget now) you will be truly sickened. He treats it like a game of cricket, trading numbers between the Allies and the Central Powers.

Thank God that Lloyd George was able to exercise some civilising influence on the way the war was conducted.

By: Will

Will — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:56:45 +0000

It is interesting to read these comments and to get both sides of the argument surrounding Haig’s ability to command. Why is it that all the armchair generals, who share a common lack of military credentials, are able to understand the basic statement, “A dead soldier is no good to anyone?” Lives are not there to be thrown away. Hindsight is not the driving force here. It is widely understood that Haig was forced to support the French in their defence at Verdun. But his lack of control over the battleground (eg: Gough and the the fiasco of Bullecort.) caused excessive loss. Haig does not deserve the adulation given to him. He was not an effective leader. The death toll was going to be high, his poor leadership made it worse.

By: WongHoongHooi

WongHoongHooi — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:47:32 +0000

WW1 largely involved Europe and so this comment comes from an “outsider”.

It is the later comments in this thread that allude to the real issue. WW1 articles tend to focus on describing battles, planning and commanders. There doesn’t seem yet to be an article summarising the question of how that war SHOULD have been fought (tactically & operationally), given:

a. the onset of trenchlines on both sides in a continuous front; and

b. political pressure on military commanders on each side to deliver a military victory.

It seems to this outsider that any criticism of the tactics or planning or generals must be in the form of measurement against how the war should have been conducted (albeit this would still be the ‘hindsight’ view.)

By: Bob Marley

Bob Marley — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:09:11 +0000

U R Sad

By: Guerrilla Roach

Guerrilla Roach — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:46:57 +0000

Haig was a victim of his era. He embodied the distance between classes, between soldier and commander, the exemplified the character dominating the upper classes mindset of the time. His distance from the battles compounded this isolation in thinking. I find Stephen Fry’s character of General Malchet in Blackadder comically embodies this thinking well.

Haig undoubtedly made many wrong turns. His bloody minded adherence to a war of attrition in the face of massive failure was to say the least unwise. But was the fault all his? That I fear is an impossible question to answer. He was made by a society that considered themselves superior to the rest of the world.

Britain has a long colonial history of failing to learn from experience, they new about the folly of trench warfare, in both the Crimean War and the New Zealand Wars (against the Maori). They had experienced failure at trying to bombard earth worked fortifications, as outlined by Belich in the New Zealand wars books, yet, failed to translate this experience to the Western front.

The fault only partly lies with Haig in my opinion. He was a fine example of the colonial British mindset; arrogant, ignorant, foolish, and unimaginative. The silly notion of relying on the tried and tested, that had already failed in the past; the unwillingness to change tactics in the face of overwhelming loses: in my mind speak for itself.