Wars and Conflicts permalink
The most hated person of the Great War
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
This came from a conversation, and one answer strangely enough as far as the civilian population was concerned seemed to be the boy that rode the bike and delivered the dreaded telegraph. Although it was not him they really hated but what he brought.
-
Message 2
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
I wonder if any of those boys went missing.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
Sadly in time, the mothers of some of them would also curse the rattle of their bikes on the cobbles.
-
Message 4
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
I have heard something similar previously though perhaps "dreaded" rather than "hated".
MB -
Message 5
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
Some of those telegram delivery boys must have had awful encounters. They'd only be what - 14, 15, 16? - I'm guessing. Full of patriotic bull**** about 'The Hun' from the daily papers etc., then coming face to face, every day, with poor, completely distraught women.
-
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
It must have been terrible for them, children, but still the bearer of that telegram. Later of course young women also rode those bikes delivering those messages of death.
-
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 18th January 2010
Apologies for side-tracking the thread, but from a modern view I think the women who gave away white feathers should have been more hated. Nice and easy to bully men into joining up from the position of knowing you'd never have to risk being shot at.
-
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 18th January 2010
Cloudy, a very good point. Some no doubt the wives of rich men who stayed at home themselves making even more money.
GF -
Message 9
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 18th January 2010
Not so sure that the women giving out white feathers were "hated" except perhaps by the recipients of the white feathers.
Also have doubts about them being the wives of rich men profiting from the war. I would have thought they are more likely to be the wives or family members of people serving in the army or of those killed.
The rich men profiting from the war are just as likely to have had sons out there and there were heavy losses in junior officers.
MB -
Message 10
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 18th January 2010
About the 'White Feather'... I remember reading about an soldier(can't recall his name unfortunately) who, whilst home on leave from the front decided for comfort to go out in his long discarded and comfortable 'civvies'. When he was on the omnibus he was approached by a young lady who presented him with a white feather, whereupon he presented her with his Military Cross!
-
Message 11
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 20th January 2010
It has to be Douglas Haig.
-
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 20th January 2010
His whisky's not bad though.
-
Message 13
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
Only if you've watched too much Blackadder and read the wrong books!!!
When Haig died in 1928, more people turned out for his funeral than that of Princess Di. When his body lay in state, the que of people, 4 abreast, stretched at times to up to 1 mile.
The vilification of Haig began in the 1960's when the history of the first world war was revisited using the works of Churchill, Lloyd George and Liddle-Hart, as its basis.
I'd say the Kaiser. -
Message 14
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
Hi toffee142/
Sorry, regardless of what you say, Haigh, and his Staff are responsible for awful carnage and there is no avoiding the fact. -
Message 15
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
Wasn't the awful carnage on both sides?
The French losses were huge, as were the German.
Haig was following orders, so surely the mosted hated person should in fact be the prime minister,Lloyd-George? He had the power to stop it but never did. -
Message 16
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Hi toffee142/
You're quite right about Lloyd George and the equivalent losses by the the others, but Haigh was the commander on the ground at the Somme and kept up the attack relentlessly even after the first day disaster and when it was apparent his tactics were at fault. -
Message 17
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Gentlemen (And ladies) I should remind you that the elected members never take responsibilty for a defeat and the losses, only for the victory Defeats are always either the fault of the generals, or the party that was in power before them who either failed to buy the right stuff, or didn't stop the war starting in the first place.
-
Message 18
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
Why does everyone always focus on the Somme? The Battle of the Somme was originally a joint operation planned by the French, with them taking the leading role. This however was prevented by the German attack on Verdun. Haig, as the junior partner in the allies, had to continue to plan and launch the Somme offensive for two main reasons: firstly to take pressure off the French at Verdun, and secondly to show that Britain was playing her part in the war and supporting her French allies, who were ultimately in charge!
The tactics employed weren't just his! They were the same tactics used by both sides, with the Germans under orders to retake everthing that they lost, hence their huge losses.
Tactics had to be learnt, which they were, and by 1918, thanks to Haig, the allies launched the Battle of Amiens, where infantry, tanks, air and artillery supported each other in a stunning victory referred to as the 'Blackday of the German Army'. -
Message 19
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Bashful anthony
Just to join in, it is worth noting that Haig and his staff got proportionately fewer of their men killed than their German and French opposite numbers.
When Sassoon penned his famous protest about the conduct of the war, he specified that he was not criticising the military leadership (i.e. Haig) but the poloitical leadership (i.e.Lloyd George).
LW -
Message 20
Posted by MB (U177470) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
I think one problem is that schoolchildren appear to spend more time on poems about WWI than actually studying the real history of the war.
Most people's only knowledge of WWI is Blackadder, Oh What A Lovely War etc. -
Message 21
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Most people's only knowledge of WWI is Blackadder, Oh What A Lovely War etc.
Good. Better that, and maybe watching some old films like "All Quiet" and the German "Westfront 1918", than reading patriotic bull**** about what a wonderful thing it was that Britain did in 1914.
War is hell (Sherman). And - it always goes wrong. -
Message 22
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Friday, 29th January 2010
toffee142, hi.
The tactics employed weren't just his! They were the same tactics used by both sides
Not much of a defence of Haig to say the other side were making the same mistakes - so they were as bad as each other!
Tactics had to be learnt, which they were,
Were they? A year later, at Paschendale, the same tactics were employed with even more disastrous results. Haig was a slow learner then! -
Message 23
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 29th January 2010
Bashful Anthony
Where to start?
Haig managed to kill proportionately fewer of his men than his French and German opposite numbers, so he must have been doing something right (or less wrong).
When Seigfried Sasson wrote his famous protest, he specified that he was objecting to the POLITICAL conduct of the war, not the military leadership.
The death toll on the Somme was appalling, but the disaster of the first day was never repeated, in the battle or any other. the Germans suffered casualties on a similar scale, and at the end of the battle had to make a strategic withdrawal because they had been too weakened to hold their position. It was a strategic vistory for the Allies.
Lessons were learned, and casualties during Third Ypres, though also terrible, were less than during the Somme campaign.
But I wouldn't want you to feel you have to let little things like the facts get in the way of higher truth.
LW -
Message 24
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
LongWeekend/
Haig managed to kill proportionately fewer of his men than his French and German opposite numbers,
That's okay then. Congratulations to the Field Marshall.
When Seigfried Sasson wrote his famous protest, he specified that he was objecting to the POLITICAL conduct of the war, not the military leadership.
I never mentioned Sassoon.
But I wouldn't want you to feel you have to let little things like the facts get in the way of higher truth.
Try telling that to the Fallen!!! -
Message 25
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
BA
I referred to Sassoon because he offers a useful insight into the thinking of a disaffected front-line officer. He was sufficiently angered by what was happening to make a public protest, but he specifically excluded his military superiors from his criticism.
As others have already, I would suggest you try reading some of the contemporary accounts. None of the veterans' memoirs accuse Haig, let alone try to turn him into a hate figure. That was the later work of the likes of Lloyd George trying to shift blame and then the pacifist/class war lobby in the '60s - it is a wellknown technique of agitprop to choose an invidual to focus hate.
"Try telling that to the Fallen!!!"
One man who considered what might be said to the dead at the end of WWI was Kipling, who had lost his son. He wrote "Tell them that their fathers lied." He didn't blame the Generals, he blamed the political Establishment (he regarded himself as part of it).
You are entitled to any opinion you like, but you need to be able to defend it if you want to post on fora like this. That requires knowledge oif the subject, and you have made key errors of fact. As the Wise and Good Dilbert has been known to ask "When did ignorance become a point of view?
LW -
Message 26
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
LW.
When did ignorance become a point of view?
People who are rattled or unsure of their ground invariably resort to cheap insults. Not very impressive!
The fact remains that Haigh and his Staff were responsible for tactics and the daily running of the War. If he was not to blame for the repeated,fruitless assaults, then how can anyone else be held responsible? Simples. -
Message 27
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
As I said earlier, Lloyd George was ultimately responsible, he was the prime minister after all, and had the power to stop Haig - see Prior & Wilson. Passchendaele: the untold story, New Haven and London, Yale University Press 1996.
What Lloyd George did however was nothing!
In 1933 Lloyd George began his War Memoirs. He wrote, “I aim to tell the naked truth about War as I saw it from the conning-tower at Downing Street. I saw how the incredible heroism of the common man was being squandered to repair the incompetence of the trained inexperts…..in the ghastly butchery of a succession of vain and insane offensives.”
Most of his critism fell on Haig,the index contains over two pages of entries on him!
According to Brian Bond,The Unquiet Western Front, Lloyd George “devoted a special effort to the prosecution case in the Passchendaele campaign because he saw this as crucial in shaping the British people’s memory of the Great War.” He sought to vindicate himself for his own lack of action in a disastrous campaign which he ultimately, as Prime Minister, had the power to stop, and therefore by pointing the finger of blame at the high command, more importantly Haig, it was them and not he who became “stigmatized indelibly” with the images of Passchendaele; mud, blood and slaughter. Later in life, Lloyd George, when questioned about his War Memoirs, revealed that he had had no notes or diaries on the Passchendaele campaign and that he dictated the whole episode whilst on a golfing holiday in the Algarve.
His War Memoirs,along with the works of Churchill and Liddle-Hart, who had their own reasons for their version of events, shaped the way the history of the First World War came to be seen.
Books that may be of further use are Mud, Blood and Poppycock - Corrigan, and The Great War:Myth and Memory - Todman. -
Message 28
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Hi toffee 142/
Please don't think I am an apologist for Lloyd George. Clearly, in any conflict the political leadership has overall resposibility. But, to my way of thinking, if Haig at any time felt that Downing Street was misdirecting matters, then he shoud have made that clear. So, he either went along with the strategy though he disagreed, making him a moral coward; or he was in agreement with the strategy, which makes him culpable also. -
Message 29
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
BA
So, I managed to provoke a sensible question with my barb? Well done, Dilbert.
I agree with toffee142. The responsibility lies with the politicians, of all nations. I would add that Lloyd George also fastened on Third Ypres to give him an explanation for withholding reinforcements from the BEF in the early months of 1918 that he could blame on Haig, rather than the truth, which was that he wanted troops at home because he feared revolution - in retirement "The People's Tribune" didn't want to admit he had been afraid of the mob.
As for moral cowardice, I think you need to consider the role of military leadership in a democracy. Haig's instructions were, in co-operation with our Allies, to resist German aggression, drive the Germans out of Occupied France and Belgium and defeat the enemy. If that had not been possible, then he should have informed his political masters. But the fact was that, at terrible cost, it did seem possible. The Somme was a bloodbath but end in a strategic victory. If the politicians did not want to continue at that cost, it was up to them to decide so. It was not up to a general to "refuse to soldier". If the British and French generals had refused to continue fighting, then German aggression would have triumphed. Would that have been moral courage?
That is, of course, why Sassoon criticised the rocks, not the brasshats. He felt the war had gone beyond a price worth paying, with no results, so political action was necessary.
Haig's generalship can, of course, be criticised. He continued both the Somme and Third Ypres longer than necessary. But, as noted already, the British Army suffered proportionately fewer casualties than the enemy.
And a last point on casualties. The casualty figures in the Great War were awful, and for Britain much higher than in WWII. But the casualty rates in the two conflicts, once major British armies began to be engaged with the main enemy (from mid-1943 on)were much the same. The adjutant of one infantry battalion in 51st Highland Division compared the battalion's casualties in the two wars and discivered, to his suprise, that the battalion lost more bewteen 43-45 than it had 17-18. In particular, officer casualties were higher. Yet no one accuses Montgomery or Alexander of being callous butchers.
In terms of moral cowardice among 14-18 militaries, I think that finger can only be pointed at the German admirals and generals. At the end of 1916, they knew that a military victory could not be achieved and the only chance was a resort to a practice that would widen the war and create even greater suffering. Their response was to tighten their political control - and their political master, the Kaiser, let them. Then, by the end of April 1918, they knew that no strategy would avert defeat, but refused to admit it, eventually forcing a surrender based on a lie (collapse of poltical will not military capability) that created the insidious "stab in the back" dogma that contributed so much to the rise of extremism and the next war.
Cheers
LW -
Message 30
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
Haig was in no position to critise the Government publicly, he was a soldier, and his duty was to serve his country in time of need.
As said before the strategy followed was the same used by all of the belligerent nations, because a war like this had never been fought before! So does that mean then that all of the German, French and USA Generals are the same?
Tactics were developed, but it wasn't until 1918 that they saw fruition.
If you were a 1914-18 General, what would you have done differently? And please remember that you have an army that has no experience, are dealing with the largest force Britain has deployed in the field, are subordinate to the French and have little support from a prime minister who wants to dictate how you should fight this war so that he can claim victory! -
Message 31
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
I'd suggest you need to split 1914-1918 in two - I think the relationship between Asquith & his generals was different from that including DLG.
-
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Does not the way we fought the great War, and then the beginning of the Second World War confirm the suggestion that at the start of any war, the first action talen should be to retire all the senior officers who will try and fight the new war with the last wars tactics.
-
Message 33
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Evening toffee 142/
Tactics were developed, but it wasn't until 1918 that they saw fruition
But it was not our tactics that saw the end of the conflict. It was the German Offensive of March,1918 which opened things up; followed by their subsequent collapse, due mainly to exhaustion.
I cannot even begin to say what I would have done. I have no military expertise as such. The Allies had plenty, but they could come up with nothing but the same scenario. I hope, had I been in charge, I would not have suffered so many thousands to a horrific and useless death.
So does that mean then that all of the German, French and USA Generals are the same?
Indeed it does! -
Message 34
Posted by Matt (U14300373) on Monday, 1st February 2010
BashfulAnthony, I don't think it is true to say that the German Army's advance in 1918 shows that Britain should have adopted its tactics earlier in the war. If anything it shows the reverse: the use of stormtroopers to infiltrate enemy lines and allow rapid advance meant that they were overstretched and unable to sustain their front. It was Blitzkreig without the mechanised force needed. The bite and grab tactics the British used in the end was much more effective.
It really is unfair to overly criticise Haig. Yes, the Somme was a disaster, but there could've have been little way of knowing that it was going to be beforehand. There was genuinely the view that the bombardment would be successful. He's probably more culpable for Passchendaele, which was a daft place to attack but overall Haig did well. We won in the end despite having not history of mass armies or continental warfare. That's no mean feat.
Your argument seems to be that lots of people died so someone was incompetant. That just wasn't the case. The Generals were groping for a way to fight a war of unprecedented scale and the fact that they did so is testament to their ability. -
Message 35
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Greetings One and All,
I've no wish to re-enter this debate because we've done it all before, but thanks to all those who have supported Haig, who was and is much maligned. I notice that no one has mentioned the General who invented the attrition at Verdun or the use of gas against defenceless soldiers - or is the title 'Most Hated Man' restricted to the British only?
Regards Spruggles -
Message 36
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Matt, hi/
Your argument seems to be that lots of people died so someone was incompetant.
I find it hard to look beyond the millions of dead, each one a tragedy for somebody. You cannot talk of competence and success when in order to achieve such, tens of thousands of men died horribly. Not forgetting that there was no real reason to fight at all. So Haig and co. might have said "we won," but it cost a million British casualties (including, incidentally, my grandfather, on the Somme.) -
Message 37
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
You have answered your own criticism of Haig! Just as you have said, you have no experience to know how to fight a war of trenches and stalemate, neither did the BEF. Before the first world war the british army was no more than a colonial police force of about 130,000 highly trained men. Mobile warfare was how everyone expected to fight. The trenches and stalemate of ww1 changed this, and tactics had to be developed.
The tank was perhaps the greatest weapon to defeat trenches, but it had to be developed. What you seem to think is that it should have all just fallen into place, this however is not the case. Soldiers, like everyone else, learn from their mistakes and by trying things out, yes it will cost lives, but ultimately save thousands.
You mention the March offensive of 1918, I suggest you read Haig's back's to the wall speech, and his actions in 1914 during 1st Ypres, it may give you a new perspective on Haig.
Why was there no real reason to fight? -
Message 38
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Why was there no real reason to fight?
Yer, right. The assassination of that Archduke whatsisname was really worth all them millions of decent folk killed. Course it was. -
Message 39
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
Hi toffee 142/
I suggest you read Haig's back's to the wall speech,
A very moving speech - made, no doubt, from a safe distance! I'm sorry but I am not in any sense convinced that Haig, as the overall commander, and regardless of what his allies or the foe did, conducted his campaign in a manner which put a premium on the safety of his men - they were gun-fodder, and I bet he found it hard to sleep at night. -
Message 40
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
toffee 142.
Further:
Why was there no real reason to fight?
This is something I'm still not clear about - why did we need to fight? What "cause" demanded the deaths of millions, in the most horrific, sordid and totally undignified way? -
Message 41
Posted by Matt (U14300373) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
Actually, the reason for fighting World War I (to defend Belgian neutrality and prevent a German hegemony in Europe) was probably better than the reason we fought World War II (to defend Polish neutrality and prevent a German hegemony in Europe). At least we had a more direct interest in Belguim it being just across the channel and a big colonial power in Africa.
I can see why you think that the million deaths Britain suffered in World War I was a tragedy, but it is wrong to blame Haig. He wasn't a madman who was careless with the lives of his men. He was in command of a army whose casualities were in line with its size. -
Message 42
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
I can see why you think that the million deaths Britain suffered in World War I was a tragedy, but it is wrong to blame Haig. He wasn't a madman who was careless with the lives of his men. He was in command of a army whose casualities were in line with its size.
And Haig seems to get some of the deflected blame for the war being fought in the first place!
The Western Front had bogged down into one long seige. Haig got to fight few battles with the option to outmanouvre the enemy and his losses are on par with some of the greats of military history. In the four days Battle of Leipzig Napoleon had 38,000 killed (almost 1 in 5 soldiers). Marlborough lost 21,000 dead at Malplaquet (almost 1 in 4).
Haig's reputation was ruined by the fact that the logistics system could keep an army in place and fighting for longer than in previous times and with far more men involved. -
Message 43
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
This came from a conversation, and one answer strangely enough as far as the civilian population was concerned seemed to be the boy that rode the bike and delivered the dreaded telegraph. Although it was not him they really hated but what he brought
It was a waste of time hating the ,'boy, ' as someone has said. In the summer of 1940, I opened the door to a knock as a seven year old! It was a postman on a bike, he was in tears and asked for my mam, she was at work in munitions, so he refused to give it me, though I offered to take it to her!
A neightbour came and asked what the matter was? He couldn't speak and showed her the telegram. It's as though it was yesterday! It wasn't the boy, In this case ,against Hitler, I'm proud my dad died. I blame the politicians.
More !
If were looking for blame, especially in the first world war, we should blame the foolish men who for one reason or another allowed themselves to be used to raise ,'Pal's battalions'.
In the working class area where I lived as a child, I was more or less allowed in to any neighbours house at will. All along the street there were brass plaques and parchment forms in Gothick Script commemorating some one who had died in a Pals Battalion in WW1 and always on the Somme. -
Message 44
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
your remarks about Haig not caring for his men are I'm afraid mis-informed. Haig's diary records his thoughts and his actions in regards his men, I suggest you read it, it will show you the true side of his character, not the one portrayed by the politicains who besmirched his name! Secondly who do you think organised the British legion into the organisation it is today? Haig. Who created poppy day, under writing it with his own money? Haig. Who campaigned tirelessly to make sure that the men who served under him were looked after? Haig. When the armistice was signed, whose first command was to make sure his men were looked after? Haig.
The reason the war was fought basically was because politicians would not talk to each other and nations always want to get one over on other nations - just like today. Its the soldiers who then have to come to the rescue and pay with their lives. So as I said on my earlier entry, the most hated people of the first world war should be the politicians for their schemes got us into it!
Soldiers fight to protect their country and I for one am grateful that they did and still do, for without their courage and bravery, where would we be? -
Message 45
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
Good morning toffee 142.
Take a look at this link. In particular note Haig's attitude towards tanks and the machine gun. Bearing that in mind, it is no wonder he committed so many to their deaths:
-
Message 46
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
Hi BashfulAnthony,
Suggest you look at these:-
You will also find that Haig was in fact a major supporter of the tank, he was criticised by DLG for using it to early. How else was it to be developed if it wasn't used? Something Haig did because he knew how good it was and how good it could be as the weapon to defeat the trenches. -
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
In the four days Battle of Leipzig Napoleon had 38,000 killed (almost 1 in 5 soldiers). Marlborough lost 21,000 dead at Malplaquet (almost 1 in 4) At Borodino, Napoleon lost close to 30,000 (1 in 4) troops in LESS THAN ONE DAY (between around 7 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon), while the opposing Russian forces lost almost 45,000 (1 in less than 3) troops.
-
Message 48
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
Hi toffee/
I have to say that none of your links addresses the subject of Haig's dismissive attitude towards the machine gun. Surely a distastrous failure? -
Message 49
Posted by Matt (U14300373) on Wednesday, 3rd February 2010
I'm pretty sure Napoleon once said something along the lines of "what are the lives of a million men to a man such as I" (although I can't find the exact quote online). He really was a callous man. He has to ranks alongside Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Hitler and Stalin as someone who was willing to use a state and its people for his own personal demands regardless of cost in lives.
-
Message 50
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 4th February 2010
I have to say that none of your links addresses the subject of Haig's dismissive attitude towards the machine gun. Surely a distastrous failure?
I'll bite.
In what context did he say this? Early in the war this could have been a morale-boosting lie to cover for the shortage of machine guns. It could have been a lie to try to get Vickers to drop their price (Vickers were threatened with prosecution for war profiteering).
It might have been because the British trained their riflemen aim and shoot rapidly so the advantage of inaccurate machine guns seemed less. The Germans actually believed they faced large numbers of machine guns at Mons.
Even if Haig didn't approve of machine guns, he certainly didn't inhibit their spread nor use throughout the British Army.
Whatever Haig publicly said about tanks, his actions were strongly supportive of the idea. He persisted in ordering their purchase and deployment, despite poor initial performance at the Somme.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.