HAIG’S LEADERSHIP

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 December 1934, Page 10

HAIG’S LEADERSHIP

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr Lloyd George’s memoirs, fiercely criticising Earl Haig’s leadership, and especially the Battle of Passchaendale, are arousing keen controversy in the English Press. In defence of Earl' Haig, Major-Gen. Arthur Solly-Flood writes to the Editor of "The Daily Telegraph”: —

Sir,—The old maxim “De mortuis nil nisi bonum,” translated into English, means, it you have nothing good to say about, the dead, say nothing at all. The Welsh translation as gatnered from Mr Lloyd George’s Memoirs would appear to mean just the reverse. Unfortunately for him. however, in his eagerness to magnify, his own importance by casting aspersions upon ethers, this brilliant individual iias permitted himself to stray from the path of veracity.'

First, in his relentless attempts to vilify the memory of .the late FieldMarshal Earl Haig, by laying on him ;ho whole onus ot the British losses .it Paschaendale, Mr Lloyd George has laid himself open to the charge of stating halt-truths. In 1917 it was the diplomatic, not th'< strategic or the tactical, situation which made it imperative that the British Army in France, should do something to draw on to itself the rulL attention cf the Germans, and »y so doing relieve our Allies on the .Western Front from hostile aggression.

With,„ this end in view, after full • nsidera'tidn and consultation with the Allied Command, . and after months o’ preparation, the attack on Fasschaendale was staged and launched, and very important successes were gained at various stages, until bad weather and Napoleon’s fifth element, mud, inteivened. Unfortunately, when this occurred, although cur Allies had rectified the trouble which had ben rampant among- their soldiers, they had not succeeded in stiffening the backs of their > politicians. The diplomatic situation had in no way improved, and the necessity for-ensuring that the enemy’s attention was fixed on the British was as strong as ever. It is not true to say that French military opinion was against Passchacndale. Petain never objected tc che plan. On the contrary, he made constant .appeals to Earl Haig “to keep up the offensive so as to keep the Germans busy”; and later lie gave what assistance he could at Passchaendalo by lending a small tinny- under Gen. Autlioiue.

Mr Lloyd George’s military knowledge should be sufficient to make him awaie. that it is not possible to switch off a major operation of the nature of the Battle oi Passchaendale and mount sfmilai- one on a different part of the front without;either great loss of time, during which pressure .on the enemj . would cease, or without vastreserves of men and material which Earl Haig did not have at his disposal.

Pressure on the enemy had to be maintained; therefore the battle was continued. It should be borne in mind that tlie handling of tho diplomatic situation was Mr Lloyd George's business and not Earl Haig’s. For these reasons Mr Lloyd George is open to the charge of stating halftruths.

Where ho departs completely from tho truth is in his-’ficcusatioh of Earl Haig and his staff of ignorance, attributable to consideration of their own personal safety and to callous-

ness of the conditions in which the men were fighting at Passchaendale.

It is within the realms of possibility that an officer of the headquarters staff, whose normal duties did not ordinarily bring him in close touch with front line troops, might La overcome by the conditions in which men were called upon not only to fight but to exist. Such actually was the case quoted by Mr Lloyd George. But there were many staff officers •at General Headquarters whose normal duties took them into the most' advanced areas, and whose duty it was to report to the, Comamnder-in-Cli'fei. Not only was this so, but Earl Haig made a practice of visiting forward areas himself and gaining personal knowledge of the conditions whenever .his innumerable duties alto.ded opportunity. Passchaendale was no exception to the rule in this respect. Earl Haig was well aware or all the circumstances. GERMAN ADMISSIONS. Towards the latter half of the battle when conditions became so bad he would gladly have called a. halt and contented himself with the gains that had been made. Had he done so, an offensive would inevitably have been quickly launched against our Allies, who in t-heir mentality at that time .would assuredly have sued for peace at any price. Had inis occurred Mr Lloyd George might have had some cause to give rein to his vindictiveness and to loose the vials of his wrath on Earl Haig. The charge of obstinacy born of. callous ignorance which Mr Lloyd George has laid against the Coin-mander-in-Chief does not bear even a semblance of truth.

Should evidence be necessary to prove that the Battle cf Passchaendale served its purpose, .it is forthcoming from the Germans themselves. Ludendorff in his memoirs admits that their

mcrale was severely shaken. The Crown Prince said: “Directly ; the Niveele offensive Ceased; every available. soldier was hurried off to lace the British. Therefore no counteiattack on the French was possible.” The German official monographer in Flanders wiote: “Divisions disappeared by dozens in the turmoil of the battle, only to emerge from the witches’ cauldron after a short pe:..m thinned and exhausted, often reduced to a miserable remnant, the gaping spaces kit by them being filled by fresh divisions.” A German pilot brought down in our lines in October, in reply to a question as to the probable delation of the war, replied: “That all depends on you English.”

Lastly, it is not true that German troops were taken from the Western front to smash Kerenski at Riga and for use at Caporetto in Italy. These six divisions were the same and.constituted the German General Reserve on the Eastern front.

Sufficient has been said to lay bare the mass or gross misrepresentation contained in Mr Lloyd George's Memoirs and to make it clear that Earl Haig’s, conduct of the Battle of Passchcndaelo wai more (han fftAfified.

Mr Lloyd George lias seen fit to criticise matters of a purely military nature and to poui odium on commaiiders and staffs in general on their conduct in the Great War. It would be ’ easy' not only to vindicate these officers, but to convince the uninitiated, and posterity, that they were noil her the. funks nor the pig-headed : fools which is to bo inferred from Mr Lloyd George’s Memoirs. Neither would it be difficult to expose the many mistakes and short-’

comings which can be laid at the door of politicians. Such, however, is not the intention of this letter. ITre purpose is to defend, where no defence should be necessary, the good name cf Douglas Haig; in war, the soldiers’ trusted leader; in peace, the soldiers’ best friend —a most gallant British gentleman.’’ 1 “DROVE 400,000 TO DOOM.” A severe indictment of Earl Haig was made by Major-Gen. J. F. G. Fuller, Chief of Staff of the Tank Corps, during the Battle of Passchaendale. Hl said that Earl Haig was an “unimaginative military monk, wrapt in a freezing war ritual who diove 400,ctU men to agony and doom.” Gen. Fuller was speaking at the Empire Crusade Club. He said that the battle of Passchendaele was a suicidal operation. When Earl Haig moved operations to the Flanders front, he said, he made a fundamental error in strategy , “because Flanders is a defensive and not an offensive area.” Major J. Brunel Cohen, treasurer of the British Legion, speaking at Woking, said: “We men who were, Haig’s men know that if he made mistakes, he made them without knowing that they were mistables because he had the interests of us fellows at heart.” Cd. Sir John Brown, formerly chairman of the Legion, in an interview at. Northampton, said: “War is fought in a log. Only one side is known to a commander. No credit cun bo taken for any opinion that is baspd on a. complete knowledge of iho details of both sides many years after the event has taken place.”

EULOGY IN PARLIAMENT. I The following is a quotation from speech by Mr Lloyd George in the House of Commons on August 6, 1919. Speaking on the nation’s grant of £lOO,OOO to the Field-Marshal in recognition ci . his war services, Mr Lloyd George,; then''Prime Minister, said: “I first of all naturally choose Sir Dcug:as Haig. I have already spoken in this House at some length on his t,.eat qualities. His tenacity of purpose, his dauntlessness in the face of what looked like disaster, make him the embodiment of the.race which is sc proud to claim him among its sons. But there is another quality of Sir Douglas Haig which is known well inly to those who know him well, and that is the readiness with which he lias always been prepared to subordinate self to the demands of his country. . . . "'J here have been great men in the past who have rendered distinguished service to their country in this and ether lands, and who never hesitated to risk their lives in rendering that service, but who somehow failed in loyally when it was-a question of personal pride or professional pride. “Sir Douglas Haig has been as ready to sacrifice bis own pride of position as he has always been ready to run the risk of his life. For that, especially, we boiiott? AA4 fespect hltn. After all, modesty adds a cubit to the stature of the tallest man. . .”