Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Kitchener

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005

  I have just read George H.Cassar's Kitchener's War about WW1 up to the death of Kitchener.
  
  Kitchener normally gets a pretty bad press but Cassar is rather supportive. He in particular credits Kitchener with the development of the New armies and that it was only because of those that the allies won the war. After Russia was knocked out and the French army was exhausted it was GB that carried the bulk of the effort in 1917 and 1918.
  
  On Gallipoli he claims that Kitchener had originally wanted a landing in Asiatic Turkey (Alexandretta I think) where GB could have cut the rail lines to both Mesapotamia and Palistine.
  
  He points out that when Kitchener died he was quite secure as he worked well in alliance with Robertson and had seen off his parlimentary critics. Even Lloyd George agrees his death was a massive shock to the nation.
  
  Cassar also claims that Kitchiner favoured more limited bite and hold attacks than Haig.
  
  In case people think this is just the natural case of a biographer supporting his subject he has also written a very critical biography of French.
  
  I found it interesting that an American historian should write biographies on two British generals in a war that the USA played only a minor part.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

  Can't claim much knowledge on the subject of Kitchener, but I get the general impression that he was chiefly a propaganda asset. Lloyd George moved swiftly to sideline him in his political role, as he was thought to be somewhat naive and incompetent as a politician - for example, though his campaign led to a surge in volunteering, he didn't really understand the need to keep men back in key industries in order to clothe, arm and transport his new army. It is widely believed that when Kitchener drowned a lot of politicians, whilst making all the right noises in public, were secretly rather relieved.

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

  I think that he was becoming less influential and possibly largely irrelevant by the time of his death. But there is no doubt that he evoked the spirit of the nation with his rallying call for the new armies.
  
  There is no doubt that they were needed to offset the enormous casualties suffered by the regular army.
  
  It's a shame that he didn't realise allowing friends to all join the same regiment at the same time would result in many towns and cities losing a whole generation of young men within a few hours

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Thursday, 6th October 2005

  
  It's a shame that he didn't realise allowing friends to all join the same regiment at the same time would result in many towns and cities losing a whole generation of young men within a few hours Μύ
  
  Especially since this phenomenon had been previously observed and widely reported in the American Civil War.

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 6th October 2005

  " It is widely believed that when Kitchener drowned a lot of politicians, whilst making all the right noises in public, were secretly rather relieved."
  
  I would agree because Kitchener was not a politician also I think they were irritated that he and Robertson worked so well together.
  
  Robertson later realised how much he missed Kitchener.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Friday, 7th October 2005

  Kitchener does seem to have had a sceptical attitude to the Territorial Army, which he viewed as being comparable to the French territorial forces. It was much better trained and equipped, and could have been brought to bear much faster than the "New Armies", possibly early enough to affect the "race to the sea" in the Aliies favour.

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 10th October 2005

  I have just read George H.Cassar's Kitchener's War about WW1 up to the death of Kitchener.
  
  ....
  On Gallipoli he claims that Kitchener had originally wanted a landing in Asiatic Turkey (Alexandretta I think) where GB could have cut the rail lines to both Mesapotamia and Palistine.
  ....
  
  Μύ
  
  Tim
  
  May have read this book, if its the one I'm thinking of. Just tried to find it upstairs but my library is such a mess. Must spend a day or two some time trying to sort it out.
  
  Possibly a different one however because I thought I remembered reading the opposite on Gallipoli. I.e. that he insisted the landings be on the peninsula because the relatively small allied forces would be in danger of being overwhelmed on a wider front. Could just be by memory failing again. I think a landing on the Asian shore might have been better because you had more room for manoeuvre.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005

  Temporary lodgements were effected on the Asiatic shore, successfully, to cover the assaults on the peninsula. Perhaps, in view of the problems at Y beach etc, a really good local commander would have chosen to reinforce success, and push on with them,. Certainly if the Asiatic shore had been in allied hands (the landings theree were largely French) the task of sweeping up the mines would have been easier, and thus additional landings could have been made further up the straits rather than at Suvla.

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 11th October 2005

  Temporary lodgements were effected on the Asiatic shore, successfully, to cover the assaults on the peninsula. Perhaps, in view of the problems at Y beach etc, a really good local commander would have chosen to reinforce success, and push on with them,. Certainly if the Asiatic shore had been in allied hands (the landings theree were largely French) the task of sweeping up the mines would have been easier, and thus additional landings could have been made further up the straits rather than at Suvla.Μύ
  
  Turnwest
  
  I think while there were military advantages to landings on the Asian side the big advantage might have been political. There was still a sizeable Greek element along the Aegean coastline of Anatolia at the time. The Greek government was divided between the PM (pro-allied) and the king (depending on sources pro-German or simply wishes to avoid conflict. It was touch and go who would win and initially the PM had offered 70000 Greek troops for operations against Turkey. If there had been fighting in this area, although the bulk of the Greek minority were further south, it might have tipped the balance in favour of Greek intervention. This would have made available considerably more manpower. Also possibly fear of an invasion by their ancient enemies with all that could involve while already heavily engaged with the allies it might encouraged the Turks to make a moderate peace quickly.
  
  Also Greek intervention would have opened up supply lines to the Serbs, who held out for over a year against the Austrians. Especially if Turkey had been forced out of the conflict this might have enabled supplies and reinforcements to reach Serbia, further increasing the pressure on Austria and hence Germany.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: Kitchener

  Report message9

Back to top