egafd.com

There has been much controversy about General Haig being a heartless butcher, this image has been perpetuated by the likes of Ben Elton and his Blackadder series. However there is now a body of opinion that suggests that he was in fact forced by the French Generals (who had incurred enormous losses) to be be a little more enthusiastic in attacking the Germans and in fact he was not only a "Mr Nice Guy", but also quite successful as it turns out.

Anyway this topic is part of the main coursework at GCSE at the moment so it would appear that it is not as cut and dried as was once thought.

As the years go by it's likely we'll get more and more revisions of what actually happened. I know an old Lancaster tail gunner who doesn't have any regrets about the bombing of Dresden - but he was speaking from the viewpoint of someone who saw a lot of horrors from an allies point of view.

But, never having been in a war myself, I feel just as sorry for the average German soldier as any of ours because they had no choice but to follow orders or suffer the rather unpleasant consequences.

Anyone who gets their history from "Oh What A Lovely War" and "Blackadder Goes Forth" is hardly going to get a very rounded view are they? I wouldn't call Haig a hero, but he was not a butcher. He tried to minimise British losses, but with the technology they had at the time, it often just wasn't practical. But he was not a stick-in-the-mud cavalryman, he was enthusiastic for the use of tanks right from the beginning, indeed some people argue he rushed them into use at the Somme before they were ready. And after the war, he played a great part in getting the British Legion and the poppy appeal set up, that's why until recently poppies always had "Haig Fund" written on the centre.

Haig was the man for the job at the time and was much better than some historians have made him out to be.
The gobshyte Elton and his ilk are making names for themselves, and a living, by doing what they do, because of their fucking ignorance, by demeaning those who served and died. History has determined that Earl Haig and the rest of the General Staff were far better than has been previously reported. I do wonder why they were slated in the first place. Was it because of the severe losses that this Nation suffered and that someone needed to be blamed? If so why not blame the politicians? After all, these are the useless lying greedy yellow backed bastards who have since time immoriall sent the flower of the Nation to do their dirty work and die trying.

History is constantly revised as new information comes to light and
our view of past events shifts with changes in attitude and culture to
the past....
Currently Haig is largely seen as a good guy. In the 60s through to the
80s this was not the case, especially in Alan Clark`s study of the WWI
generals - `The Donkeys` as he called them.
We must remember that Haig was not C-in-C until the start of 1916,
(before that Sir John French was C-in-C) and he was not the great
proponet of trench warfare (that dubious, one might say in hindsight,
idiotic honour in British history, goes to Sir Henry Rawlinson), but it
can also be said that Haig showed little greatness as a commander; he
believed that in time the German war machine would wear itself out. He
was right but a huge cost of British life. He did not know how to handle
politicians and it was Haig who personally demanded that all found
guilty of cowardice should be shot (we shot far more than the French).
He refused to lift death sentences on numerous occasions.
I refuse to give money to the Haig Poppy Fund because I have little
respect for him and am suspicious how much of the Fund reaches the
needy.
I do give to the Lord Roberts Workshops for the Blind. A great military
charity (and Roberts, hero of the Afghan and Boer Wars) a better
soldier.

'.....and it was Haig who personally demanded that all found
guilty of cowardice should be shot (we shot far more than the French).
He refused to lift death sentences on numerous occasions.'

Its my understanding that of the 3000+ British soldiers sentenced to be shot, only around 10% were actually carried out. The French are generally thought to have shot over 600.

As I previously stated, this was a war that was an entirely new form of warfare and the rules were made up as it progressed.
Today we understand what "shell shock" is all about. Then, it was regarded as cowardice and according to the rules at the time examples needed to be made "Pour les encouragement des autres" as the Frogs put it.That in no way makes it right though, but, at the time it was deemed necessary.
It worked out roughly at an execution every 5 days, and usually by the soldiers of the accused unit.
I have seen traumatised soldiers during my service and luckily it has not affected me, though I have seen some awful things, but, transport us back 50 years to that period and some of them would have been shot and that is a fact.