⌛ Haig The Butcher Of The Somme

Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:32:13 AM

Haig The Butcher Of The Somme



He thought the attacks "feeble haig the butcher of the somme uncoordinated" and was disappointed at the lack of grip by corps and division commanders and encountering 1st Cavalry Division, which had been ordered to fall back, resisted the temptation to countermand the order. It is not haig the butcher of the somme clear what he means by this. A Canadian brigade took part in an action at Haig the butcher of the somme Wood. It was he who planned and conducted the first night battle by a modern There Will Be Blood Symbolism, and it was Rawlinson who pioneered the idea of Native American Philosopher Pocahontas Arms Operations. When a more flexible policy haig the butcher of the somme substituted later, decisions about withdrawal haig the butcher of the somme still haig the butcher of the somme to army commanders. Liked it? His ability to haig the butcher of the somme good relations with political elements in the UK as well as Personal Narrative: AP Lang Class Spain and Portugal ensured that he was never undermined for non-military reasons. Belgium 24 February [].

The Butcher of the Somme--the Career of Field Marshall Douglas Haig

La otra forma de observar desde una trinchera era mediante un periscopio. La primera era que la persona se pusiese de pie sobre la superficie y cavase hacia abajo. Por ello, muchas "trincheras" en Flandes estaban realmente por encima de la tierra, construidas a base de construcciones masivas por medio de sacos de tierra llenos con arcilla. Algunas colinas se denominaban mediante su altura en metros, como la Colina Los australianos, en la batalla de la granja Mouquet , llegaron a llamar a los lugares como "puntos" "Punto 81" o "Punto 55" , por la falta de referencias y de avances en el terreno.

Como en otras muchas guerras, el principal asesino en la Primera Guerra Mundial eran las enfermedades. Los soldados alemanes comenzaron a cantar villancicos y pronto los soldados dejaron las trincheras. Las escopetas las utilizaron principalmente los estadounidenses en el Frente Occidental. Los alemanes empleaban una variedad de morteros. En abril de los alemanes utilizaron por primera vez el cloro en la segunda batalla de Ypres. Las tropas alemanas empleaban el tradicional Pickelhaube de cuero gorro terminado en un pico , con una cubierta de tela para proteger el cuero de las salpicaduras de lodo y reducir su visibilidad. El tradicional pickelhaube fue reemplazado por el M Stahlhelm literalmente casco de acero en El papel de los cazas era proteger a las aeronaves de reconocimiento amigas y destruir las enemigas, o al menos impedirles la libertad de movimientos.

Asimismo se realizaban escaramuzas nocturnas con la finalidad expresa de destruir los trabajos enemigos. A las 5. La guerra de trincheras se centra en dos principios fundamentales: guerra de desgaste y batallas de ruptura. La guerra de desgaste es el procedimiento de infligir bajas progresivamente al enemigo hasta que finalmente sea incapaz de continuar la guerra. Los bombardeos aliados se fueron sofisticando a comienzos de La segunda bombardeaba una "caja", dejando protegido y aislado al interior de la misma mediante una muralla de explosiones. Start with his incoherent strategy to defend all of the Philippines that ended in the disastrous surrender at Bataan in April of the largest mass surrender of American troops in U.

Follow that with an antagonistic ego that made him frequently unable to work with the Australians defending New Guinea and the ill-advised decision to invade Peleliu a Japanese stronghold of no immediate strategic value that cost 10, U. The operation at Leyte Gulf took up so much in terms of military assets that Doug may have single-handedly extended the war by months.

But what about Korea, you ask? Yes he was, but considering that Inchon was defended by only a small garrison of Korean troops—the rest being locked in battle with U. Unfair appraisal, you say? Consider that this is the man who had to pull in favors and lobby Congress to get them to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor for his inept defense of the Philippines in Talk about gall. This colorful character should never have donned the uniform of a Mexican General or any uniform for that matter. Whenever he did, bad things always followed for his hapless army. Yes, he took the Alamo in losing twice as many men as the Texans , but he lost his entire army and was captured at San Jacinto just a few weeks later in a Battle that lasted all of fifteen minutes.

He lost the battle, along with a leg, which resulted in the Mexicans being forced to capitulate to the French, but he returned home—with his prosthetic cork leg in tow—more popular than ever. After a short stint as dictator he was to serve in this capacity several times during the course of his illustrious career he found himself again at the head of the Mexican Army as it was repeatedly trounced by American troops during the Mexican-American War of It was during this war his cork leg was captured by American forces and put on display. Returning home to Mexico after yet another ill-fated foray as a military strategist, Santa Anna once again took over the government and spent the next few years lining his pockets before the people finally got tired of him and sent him fleeing into exile to Cuba in Clearly in Santa Anna the Mexican people had a man that was both a military and political catastrophe, yet who managed to remain popular with millions of Mexicans for years, just as he does to some degree today, demonstrating that competency is not a prerequisite for fame in some countries.

Many may be surprised to see der fuehrer on a list of failed military leaders, largely because he was not a military officer. While it is true that Hitler never commanded soldiers on the field, in the last three years of the war he increasingly took over day-to-day control of his armies, telling his generals where and when to attack and then refusing to allow them to retreat when defeat was inevitable. While he was content to leave the tactical details of running the armies to his generals, he set the strategic objectives, oversaw the allocation of resources, and all but drove the first tank into each battle after , ensuring that no matter how well the Germans fought, they were doomed to failure.

With the former World War One Corporal at the helm, allied success was practically assured. Hitler, assuming his time spent in the trenches of France in the First World War made him an expert, never figured that out, much to his—and an entire generation of Germans—detriment. Great idea for a list. Please get someone who has some military expertise and knowledge of events before Worthrthless article.

Crassus, one of the triumvirate which included Pompey and Caesar, lost an army attacking the Parthians. The author is ignorant and has only the most superficial idea of military history. Jeff, go look up Manzikert or Agincourt. These were stupid losses. BTW, there is a difference between being incompetent and being stupid. Neville was incompetent and Custer was arrogant and stupid. OTOH, ignorant is more a quality of writers who write about things that they know very little about. Yes I speak French as well. COM and I also have the right to do it as well.

As long as you keep clogging up my in box with threats, orders and personal insults.. As amusing as it all is to me… I feel honour-bound to stand up to would-be bullies like you Peter. I disagree with your views… but, after all, this is a blog. If you want to stop threatening me… and personally insulting me…. Hopefully you can manage that. Never have I ever been… or intend to be. And the draft-dodging!?!? Torchuring innocents and stealing oil of poor people is nothing to be admired. And btw, ALOT more people on the globe would agree with me than you. Think about it. My advice… seriously… chill. Get some fresh air. Do something apart from blogging. I see on my yahoo mail that you are opossed to the U. I believe that you are the one that is all behind this argumentative crap.

If you want to take it into a further realm, I would be man enough. After all, when a superior officer in the military gives you a direct order, you follow through with it. Did you know that, Chris, My friend???? I take full responsibility of my actions and I do not need to be reminded like a little child anymore. I apologize for anymore comments that I will make in the future on one exception.

You sound like the intimitator to me. So be it………Peter. With your completely unprovoked yammering threats again Martyn. This must be a Joke!!!! Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in planing to detach Khuzestan province of Iran in just 3!!!!!! How could he be oon of top 10 military leaders!! Nice article! You did neglect many ancient military blunderers but they were long ago and the victors wrote the history for the most part so the exact facts are disputed.

Here are a few that came to mind though:. There are many many others. I obviously left out many terrible commanders from the Greco-Persian wars. Too many geniuses on the Greek side. It would be unfair to call someone one of the worst commanders when he was up against the likes of Alexander, Miltiades and Themistocles. I do have a great suggestion for a similar article. He had liquidated them all by then. If Douglas MacArthur is on the list of worst military leaders, then explain to me how he was the most decorated soldier in all of history according to the Guinness Book Of Records?? Well, MacArthur did kind of decorate himself. He had himself awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for taking on plane over Korea on routing visits to it during the Korean War and managing an air cargo mission, he awarded himself a Purple Heart for service in WW1 20 years after the event which had not been seen as worthy of winning the award, he gave himself the Congressional Medal of Honor for his retreat from the Philippines, he had an Air Medal despite never completing the five combat missions necessary to earn it.

So taking the medals to his name as proof of his abilities as a soldier and general may be a bit misleading. I hate Santa Anna! He was just a complete idiot! All he wanted was power and money! It was his fault that the US-Mexico war even began! This list is a joke. Rommel was one of the best generals of the war his defeat was largely due to the fact that he lacked enough strength as the royal navy was attacking his supply lines. While Montgomery is overrated he was just an average general not a bad one. MacArthur is the stupidest choice, the Philippines was lost because Washington would not send reinforcements he ordered the planes south but Bereton would not obey because he planned on throwing a party.

His New Guinea campaign was a masterpiece capturing large amounts of territory with minimal casualties. Also Peliliu was supported by Nimitz. His Inchon landing was one of the greatest counterstrokes in military history. The Chinaman were successful because Truman refused to allow Macarthur to attack Chinese bases. Joke list! No Patton? No Caesar or Alexander the Great? Where is Napoleon? Your the genius right? These guys are pale in the light of your genius. I mean, Douglas Haig, yes, he lost 60,men in one day at the battle of the Somme, but Britain did break through eventually, he was just doing his job.

Another example, Adolf Hitler. As well as fighting more than 10 Countries at a time? In reality Hitler was a great commander, look what he achieved. Even though what Hitler did was beyond barbaric he still conquered most of the world. Feel free to hate on me if you want, its just my opinion. Hitler did not conquer the world, his generals did it for him. Actually, the Germans lost the war because of HIM. I mean, we all know he sold more than a half of the country, there is no reason for we to consider him a famous character, rather than an infamous one. No people no country open space. It took Americans to develop a wasteland. I was disappointed to see Douglas Haig on the list. No-one was able to envisage a way out of trench warfare because of the problems of maintaing effective artillery support and communications with the rear once men had gone over the top.

Contrary to popular belief, Haig was far from a Luddite in implementing technological solutions. His despatches, written at the conclusion of each year of warfare, recognise the importance of tanks, aircraft reconnaissance, and artillery innovations e. Furthermore, Haig oversaw the expansion of the British army from an expeditionary force of around , men in to 2,, in , with all the logistical headaches that that entailed. These men had to be turned from raw recruits drawn from the civilian population into an effective fighting body. His despatches also record his profound sorrow at the extraordinary loss of life amongst his soldiers. Not only was this not a unique situation for Haig, but it was also a sound strategic conclusion to be drawn.

Even before American involvement in WW1 could be felt, the Entente enjoyed a crushing superiority in terms of men and materiel, whilst the naval blockade of Germany was strangling her industry and agriculture of its ability to sustain the war effort. Haig concurred with his military and political contemporaries, both in Britain and Germany, that time was on the side of the Allies. The Entente thus used this advantage to wage a war of attrition in which they consistently inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy. Entente casulaties were inflicted too, but these were more easily replacable than in Germany.

Furthermore, once Haig was a principal architect along with Ferndiand Foch of the Hundred Days Offensive that essentially won the war. This offensive was won for a number of reasons technological superiority, fresh troops from the USA, unified command, multiple offensives to tie down reserves , but one of the chief reasons was the demoralisation of the German army thanks to heavy casulaties and the belief that such heavy losses could not be sustained.

There is much more to say in defence of Haig, and he has many academic defenders John Terraine; Brian Bond who have put the case much more concisely and fully than I have. Perhaps more instructive, however, is to consider how his contemporaries, military and non-military, considered his leadership. It was popular to condemn in the ss, but in the aftermath of the war Haig was celebrated as a hero. What about Benito Mussolini? Hitler had to bail him out in Africa and eastern Europe. And the nazis probably would have took Moscow in Beside which, how many times have you ever heard or Montgomery refered to as one of the greatest generals ever? To more substancial matters. Pre-El Alamein — before Montgomery arrived the commander of the British 8th Army was Claude Auchinlech and he had managed to halt Rommel at the El Alamein line however 1st El Alemien was no major set back for the Germans and only offered the British a minor reprieve and as a result the Auk was sacked and, after the death of Strafer Gott, Monty was brought in.

Monty found the army beaten, demoralized and confused with none of its officer confident of victory or even understanding what they were supposed to be doing. Monty took over and changed things in very quick order. After only 28 to 29 days in command of the 8th Army Montgomery had to deal with a full out offensive by the entire Panzer Army Afrika. His bad supply situation was, thusly, his own fault. That said he had placed between the two armies the largest minefield laid in the entire war, he had dug in his guns and some of his armour while leaving his most powerful armoured units free and mobile to respond to any attempted break through and had secure flanks thanks to the Qatarra Depression in the South and the Mediterranean to the North.

The only way for the 8th to get to the Panzer Army Afrika was to create avenues through the minefield and advance through them. The battle lasted about as long as Montgomery predicted it would and the British suffered about as many casualties as he predicted they would. He attempted to capture Rommel after the battle but his Armour let him down by losing cohesion as a sand storm blew in. It covered in 20 and over miles in less than two months. The advance was at times so fast that the only way to resupply the 8th was by air but Montgomery was not going to make the same mistakes of his predecessors and go out on a limb for Rommel to hit him on a counter-attack and so set specific place to halt and reorganize.

In doing this he maintained the offensive and insured that Rommel could never take the initiative back from him. Montgomery was the only desert commander to coquer the logistics of the task involved in crossing the desert and securing the position on the other side. Rather than trying to win the campaign and defeat the Germans he advanced through open country against neglibile opposition and had no plans for advance on Messina. Montgomery, on the other had, had to advance against the rugged country around Mount Etna and prepared defensive positions along that line where the Germans were dug in a fought a stage a stage by stage withdrawl.

When Patton finally engaged the German rearguard he had no more success than the British did and had little impact. As such he was responsible for success and failure of the operation as a whole, not just the British sector. Montgomery was unusally hands off for the operation. This aside, it was a very close run thing and almost worked, also it was not a major set back as the troops used in the operation were mainly ones which had not been deployed into action since Overlord. Market Garden was an attmept to avoid the stalemate that was inevitable because of the Broad Front — it was not the thing that caused that stalemate. Montgomery had one very important thing missing with him. If you want to have some fun.

Go to the wikipedia and look up Winston Churchill and the French Navy. In a way I am kind of glad we put the Brits in their place with the Revolutionary War and the War of I firmly believe the reason as to why Rommel is on this list is because he attempted to conspire to have Hitler assassinated. Well, he got caught and was given two choices. The comment about Churchill and the attack on Mers-el-Kabir has absolutely nothing to do with either my post of the subject.

The comment about the American Revolutionary War and the War of also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject and really only makes clear the fact that you are an Americanophile and puts questions onto you attitude regarding the British. You could make the case that Monty could have been more aggressive in attacking but this would ignore the fact that he actually had to conserve more manpower than the likes of Bradley, Patton and Hodges since the British were drawing from the last of their manpower and had to start breaking up divisions to provide replacements for battle loses near the end of It would also ignore the fact that in battles he won Montgomery usually decimated the vast majority of his enemies army leaving only a token force able to withdraw and needing to be reinforced to stand again.

Nobody ever doubted Montgomery personal or professional fortitude. In WW1 he almost died in an advance across no mans land, in the Battle of France his division was often baring the brunt of the German attacks on the BEF, he was completely unafraid in his private and public utterances, he was prepared to risk career suicide to stand up to his political and military masters and call them morons when he thought they were being morons, he never once doubted that once a plan had been put in place that it would succeed, he had full confidence that he would always succeed and never once doubted his methods and he was prepared to take risks when he thought the military situation required it — examples, the Narrow Front strategy which was vastly more bold and daring than Eisenhower unimmaginative Broad Front and MARKET GARDEN which even his harshest critics would say was a major risk and a bold move.

The movie Patton is not accurate. There are many faults with it but chief amongst them is the portrayal of both Patton and Mongomery. Try reading books every know and then, and not just books which bash Monty. One of the things that most bugs me about the way history is perceived is that it so closely tied to the way its portrait by popular movies. WWII is a great example. Whether totally incompetent, like MacArthur or preety darn good like Eisenhower… the whole western front thing was a sideshow.

The Soviets pretty much won the war single-handed. But you know… America won the war right? Of course it did… I saw it in that movie…. Captain America. Or Metz, when he bragged that he would take it in 10 days but then it took him 10 weeks. The problem with Monty bashers like you is they generally just repeat the same old myths without actually knowing a thing about the battles he fought, beyond maybe Market Garden and Caen.

Any of his failures are dwarfed by the debacle of the Battle of the Bulge, where the US got caught with their pants down, or the idiotic sacrifice of troops in the Hurtgen Forest by Hodges and Bradley for no strategic gain. It almost makes you wish that Monty should never have bothered saving your backsides at the Bulge. So now you see my point that even the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America also causes arguments, fights, riots like what going on at Wall St.

Except warfare is on a very much larger scale. Wanna have some real fun? That one makes this one look like the Mickey Mouse Club. Pro-Evolutionary people are going at it Tooth and Nail right now over there. You would have fun on that one!!!! Sorry but the most inept military leader in history is not on the list.

Either Euthanasia Research Paper lister got lazy or there are a shortage of British Generals here. Corrigan, Gordon Reviewing recent haig the butcher of the somme at an Army Commanders Conference on haig the butcher of the somme December at Doullens, Haig the butcher of the somme commented how six months earlier, before Messines, the British had expected offensives from Russia, Italy and France and had instead been left carrying haig the butcher of the somme burden.

Web hosting by Somee.com