Trench Lincs 28th December 2025
- trenchlincs
- 6 hours ago
- 26 min read
To become a subscriber, email me your name to trenchlincs@gmail.com
Good Morning,
I hope this week’s TL finds you all in rood health and severely turkeyed out? Not to mention the Quality Street!
We had a family orientated Christmas with lots of excitement for the young ones, including Eva losing another baby tooth just before Christmas Eve, so it was a real mix up this year with Santa, Elf on the shelf and the Tooth Fairy all on the go at once! [Did you know that with inflation, the Tooth Fairy now leaves £2, and there was me thinking it was still a tanner or sixpence as we knew it (2.5 pence for younger readers) – Ed]
Anyway, we now have New Year to look forward to. My days of wild partying appear to be behind me, [Two of my children were born in the first days of October, if you know what I mean…! - Ed] so, if you are intent on having the next few days as a couch potato in front of the television, then you need look no further than these three films that are on over the New Year.
New Year’s Eve Channel 5 at 1.40pm – ZULU. Arguably the finest film ever made!
New Year’s Day BBC 2 at 2.35pm – LAWRENCE of ARABIA. Probably David Lean’s greatest film and with a majestic performance from Peter O’Toole as Lawrence.
Friday 2nd January BBC 2 at 9.00pm – OPERATION MINCEMEAT. Based on the true story of deception by British Intelligence in WWII. A body of a deceased homeless tramp dressed as a senior British officer is dropped in the sea off Spain with a briefcase detailing plans to invade Greece and Sardinia. Will the Germans fall for the bait?
Thank you to everyone who kindly dropped me a line to wish me a Happy Christmas. Your good wishes are greatly appreciated.
One of the writers was Jo Stacey who made several well considered and thoughtful points regarding topics that we have covered in Trench Lincs in recent weeks. Jo wrote;’ A lovely Christmas Trench Lincs this week, with great artwork and Christmas cards throughout. I particularly liked the poem 'Young Fellow My Lad', I'd not heard that before. I did find I had something in my eye afterwards though...!
I enjoyed the lecture and exhibition on the Old Contemptibles at Peterborough Museum recently. As I've said before, I am definitely a novice at military family history research, and thought the OC’s were only 'army fellows'. Thanks to the exhibition, I realised my Great Grandfather, who was in the Royal Marines Light Infantry, would qualify, so it was lovely to discover that!
I'm interested in what your readers think about the Haig debate. I've been brought up in the 'Blackadder era', but it's interesting to see another side to the story, particularly that he was popular during his lifetime? More reading to do...! [See further thoughts from Tony and Matt below – Ed]
Many thanks for your emails, always a great read. Have a lovely Christmas, and looking forward to your visit to the Spalding meeting in January.’
I replied immediately, thanking Jo for her thoughts and this is what I wrote in response; ‘Yes, Douglas Haig had an almost saint like 10 years after the war until his death in 1928. Despite the casualties incurred, he became revered as the man who ‘won the war’, and then was the man responsible for knocking heads together with all of the different post-war Old Comrades associations that sprang up – some were Conservative thinking, primarily for officers, some were leaning towards socialism, others became quite militant with regard to pensions, but Haig persuaded all of them to eventually unite under the banner of the Royal British Legion, and of course, the first poppy factory for disabled veterans came under the auspices of Lady Haig.
No one would criticise the casualty list whilst the parents were alive, but by the end of the 1950s, the parents of the men who had served and died had all died off, and as the world changed in the 1960s, so the criticism of Haig and the other generals intensified, primarily through the works of John Laffin and Alan Clark, both of whom wrote famous books – ‘British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One’ and ‘The Donkeys’ respectively.
The 1960s, a decade famous for anti-establishment satire, saw the production of ‘Oh! What a Lovely War’ and other works that denigrated the actions of the Great War generation. This was then followed, as you mention, by the very funny but terribly left wing stereotypical portrayal of the officer class in Blackadder.
I studied under Gary Sheffield, Peter Simkins, John Bourne etc. at university, and they reckon that it will take 50 years before their revisionism enters mainstream thinking. Time will tell, but personally, I believe that the Great War will fade away from memory from 2039 as the world starts to commemorate 100 years since the outbreak of WWII.’
Any further thoughts or comments are very welcome.
Wishing you all a Very Happy, Healthy and Peaceful 2026.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FORTHCOMING EVENTS.
Next event - Lincoln & North Lincolnshire Branch, WFA - Monday, January 12th 2026 - Doors open 7.00pm for 7.30pm start - Royal Naval Association Club, Coulson Road, Lincoln, LN6 7BG.
The 2026 season of talks kicks off at Lincoln Branch on Monday, January 12th, when our old friend John Chester will be presenting a brand new talk entitled "Honour and Tradition".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Next Meeting - Spalding & South Lincolnshire Branch, WFA - Thursday, January 22nd 2026 - Doors open 7.00pm for 7.30 pm start - Spalding Baptist Church, Swan Street, Spalding, PE11 1BT
Meanwhile, Spalding Branch will kick off their 2026 season on Thursday, January 22nd, when Jonathan D'Hooghe, will be presenting his new talk entitled "General Horace Smith-Dorrien; his two defining battles - Isandlwana 1879 and Le Cateau 1914." More details nearer the time.
Newark Company Royal Engineers TF.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The East Midlands (Nottingham) WFA branch will hold their next speaker event on Friday 9th January 2026 at 7.30pm. The branch meets at St. Peter’s Church Hall, Church Street, Ruddington, NG11 6HA.
The speaker on this night is Dr. Scott Lindgren who will give his talk – “The Fog of Naval Warfare, The Battle of Jutland May 1916.”
Naval/maritime historian Dr Scott Lindgren will be visiting Nottingham with another story from the annals of naval warfare. Obtaining his PhD at Salford under the late, Professor Eric Grove, he specialises in 19th/20th century maritime history and is one of the few people on the lecture circuit who actually gives presentations on this subject.
The Fog of (Naval) War: the Battle of Jutland, 1916'
The Jutland engagement was the only time during the Great War that the opposing British and German battle fleets would meet. It was the largest naval battle in history up to that time and was controversial from the start with an array of differing strategies, tactics and new material being employed by its thousands of local and remote participants. It was arguably the first major engagement where truly three-dimensional warfare was considered and affected the outcome - if only by threat. This talk examines the battle and its background, along with some of the lessons, myths and controversies that have surrounded it.
If you click on this link, you will see the entire 2026 programme of events organised by John Beech.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Leadenham Military History Group’s next meeting will be on Tuesday 27th January 2026 at 7.30pm at Leadenham village hall.
This event will be an inter-active workshop which will look at the infamous Battle of Isandlwana which took place on 22nd January 1879 at the start of the Anglo-Zulu War.
All contributions on the night are welcome, or you can just sit, listen and hopefully learn.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We start off this week with the latest instalment from Ray Sellers’ recent tour of the Emerald Isle. This week, Ray has sent me details and photos of two items, both of which are massively intertwined with the Great War. Ray writes; ‘As promised, please find four more photos, for the 28th December edition of Trench Lincs.
Having been to the Titanic exhibition, I would like to add that HMS Caroline is located about a 10 minutes-walk from the Titanic Experience in Belfast. HMS Caroline was a light cruiser and part of the Grand Fleet based at Scapa Flow in Orkney, as part of the Grand Fleet, she was present at Jutland in late May 1916.’
Ray continues; ‘Helens Tower is well off the beaten track. It’s located on the Clandeboye Estate near Bangor. There are no road signs to it, and it's a 20-minute walk from the main road, through a wooded area. Fortunately, a local dog walker told me which paths to follow.
The tower was built in the 1860’s on the estate of the 1st Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava by her husband the 1st Marquess.
The men of the Ulster Volunteer Force who became the 36th (Ulster) Division in the Great War trained here, and for many of the soldiers, it was their last sight of home before embarking for France.
In 1921, when a Somme memorial to the Ulstermen was under discussion, it was decided to build a copy of the Helen Tower near Thiepval, and today we know this as the Ulster Tower memorial.’
Helen's Tower.
Ulster Tower on the Somme.
Thank you Ray for your ongoing tales from Ireland and Ulster.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tim and Gail Chamberlin are often on their travels, and at the recent Lincoln WFA Christmas lunch, Tim gave me a selection of photos from 2025 outings, one near and one far.
Tim was in Korea and Japan earlier in the year and I now have pleasure in sharing three snaps, which I have scanned as one item, of the United Nations Korean War Cemetery, and specifically, the British plot.
Much nearer to home, Tim spotted an original WWI Street Shrine memorial on Hamilton Street in Long Eaton. I know of one in Grimsby, but many of these spontaneous street shrines have been lost to view over the last 100+ years.
As the casualty lists grew into 1915, the Government made the decision to appoint the Civic Arts Society as a body, to try and control and standardise memorialisation in the UK, following the earlier decision not to repatriate the bodies of the dead.
However, such was the desire and speed of memorialisation – a process known in academic circles as ‘The Surrogate Grave Theory’, that no one organisation was able to control memorialisation of the war dead.
The first street shrines sprang up in London following the opening of the Battle of the Somme in July 1916. This was the first large scale blooding of Kitchener’s New Army battalions and especially so called ‘Pal’s Battalions’. The close knit nature of recruitment to these battalions meant that the casualty list was confined to a very small geographical location, often covering very few streets.
As the spontaneous outpouring of grief continued, the civic authorities attempted to keep the process under control, and in London, it was thought necessary for King George and Queen Mary to be seen sharing the losses in the working class areas of London that were badly affected.
Queen Mary visiting a street shrine in Hackney, London.
The original street shrines were often simple plaques of wood adorned with flowers, and as permanent memorials were erected in the 1920s, many of the original street shrines disappeared over time.
Therefore, I am very grateful to Tim for pointing me in the direction of this one in Long Eaton. I must make a point of going to see it.
Hamilton Street, Long Eaton.
Street Shrines appeared in the popular press.
Hull had a number of street shrines.
Do you know of any more surviving street shrines? Please do let me know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My recent article about my visit to the Prague CWGC war cemetery struck a chord with AVM Paul Robinson (Rtd). Paul kindly comments; ‘It’s always a pleasure to receive the ‘Trench Lincs’, especially (for me) if there’s an aviation aspect. Your photos of the gravestones of Captain Nairn SAAF, F/O Adlam RNZAF, and Flt Sgts Muller Polish Air Force and Palmer RAF in the 14 Dec edition were particularly poignant, bearing in mind my RAF/IBCC connections.
I looked up their names on our Losses Database and found them all:
F/S Palmer: 150 Sqn Wellington, Regina (Med Theatre). Lost with 4 other crewmembers during raid on Pardubice, Czech Republic.
Capt. Nairn SAAF: 34 Sqn SAAF Liberator, Foggia (Med Theatre). Lost with 7 other crewmembers laying mines in the Danube between Esztergom and Szap, Hungary.
F/O Adlam RNZAF: 153 Sqn Lancaster, Scampton (5 Gp). Lost with 6 other crewmembers, shot down by a night fighter during raid on Chemnitz. Crashed at Rossbach, Czech Republic.
F/S Muller PAF: 301 (Polish) SD Sqn Halifax, Brindisi (Med Theatre). Lost with 7 other crewmembers. Hit by ground fire returning from a Polish SOE resupply op. Crashed near Presov, Slovakia.
So they were all bomber aircrew. F/O Adlam’s name is already on the IBCC Memorial, the other 4 (flying in the Mediterranean Theatre) are in the Database and their names will be added to the Memorial when we’ve raised the funds for new panels.
Many thanks to Paul for spending the time to look up the fate of these four men who rest in Prague war cemetery. It all adds to our knowledge, and I am pleased to give permission for my photos to be added to the IBCC database.
I am now pleased to confirm that Dave Gilbert, a Trustee and the Loss Archivist at IBCC, has now added my photos to the database, and they can be viewed here.
Dave comments; ‘Many thanks indeed for the photographs.
They’re all now posted on their respective loss pages and can be viewed via these links….
All that remains is to thank you once again and to wish you a very Merry Christmas.’
My pleasure Dave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Philip Ward tipped me off to a new housing development in Cotgrave, Nottinghamshire, which has been named after a villager who won the MM three times during the Great War.
Corporal Ernest Hayes, born in Cotgrave in 1898 won the MM in March, October and November 1918 whilst serving with the King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. His brother, John, was killed on the Somme in 1916, and so Hayes View, as the development is known, is a memorial really to both men.
You can read the full story here Decorated Cotgrave WW1 soldier honoured with estate name - BBC News
It seems to be quite an 'in thing' at the moment in Nottinghamshire. A new estate in Bingham has all the roads named after men of the town who died in the war, and a new estate in Newark is called the Foresters, and the roads are named after Newark men who served in the Sherwood Foresters.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James Handley has been in London and writes; 'I spent the day in London yesterday, visiting the zoo and doing some late shopping - I must be mad! I’ll be honest, a zoo isn’t the first place that springs to my mind when you think of memorial locations but I was certainly proven wrong!
It is well maintained and I think it’s a nice touch that even after so many years the Zoological Society of London still leave a wreath in memory of those zoo employees who fell in conflict. There was a separate plaque listing those who died in the second world war. I’ve taken a few photos as I thought it may be of interest to you and fellow TL readers.' [It certainly is - Ed]
James continues; 'Furthermore, there was a statue in memory of Major Harry Colebourn, the Canadian officer who donated the bear to the zoo that inspired A A Milne to write the Winnie the Pooh stories.'
Thank you James. What a great spot on your visit to the zoo.
++++++++++++++++++++++
I shall return now to my comments last week about Sir Douglas Haig. As we approach the centenary of his death in 2028, Haig remains a fully paid up member of the ‘Marmite Club’ – like Marmite, you either love him or loathe him. Passions, tensions and opinions vary as to Haig as a character, and Haig as a commander, and this can be seen in the first two TL readers to give me the benefit of their thoughts.
First up was Tony Nutkins who wrote; ‘Afternoon Jonathan and thanks for another excellent edition of Trench Lincs, full of interesting and absorbing contributions, not least those from yourself.
The work that you put into compiling and collating these editions each week is very much appreciated. [Thank you for your kind words Tony – Ed]
Field Marshal The Earl Haig...I'm wondering what the response to your request for opinions will be?
For what it’s worth, here is mine attached, written some years ago but I can find no reason to change my mind. In my opinion, you must look at the times in which he served, the norms and mores of the time; judging him by today's standards is misleading and mistaken.
I await the incoming...’
Tony’s thoughts are here; ‘Field Marshall Haig - A personal view.
Quite simply, from 1916 onwards, the time taken and the strain put upon him by the politicians, British and French and also the French Generals, was such that I wonder how he found the time to conduct the war!
Was he the man for the job?
Lloyd George wanted to sack him but couldn’t find a replacement. Plumer may have been the man. Some say Currie and some Monash but who knows who would have made a better job of it?
Haig had foreseen that the war would last for years and not months; he had visited Germany a number of times and attended their annual manoeuvres so had an understanding of their capabilities and moral and an inkling of their intentions.
He had worked hard on the training of the Regular Army to fight a continental war. He compiled and amended the training manuals for cavalry and infantry, implemented that training; he had worked with Haldane in the formation of the Territorial Force and organised them on Regular lines to be back up for the BEF and home defence.
He had been involved with the re-organisation of the Indian Army on the same lines as the British again to support the BEF in a continental war.
How well the Territorials and the Indian Army did in 1914 and 1915, it is arguable that we may have had to withdraw from the war without them.
Haig was also involved in in the building of relations with other Empire nations with regard to supporting the British Army in the event of war and for their being organised along the same lines as the British Regular Army.
He was a first class Staff Officer, trainer and organiser. As a regimental officer he was liked and respected by officers and men alike although he always maintained that popularity was not his aim. This was for him to be a thoroughly professional soldier.
His building of influential “contacts” to assist his career progression, from Edward VII and George V downwards was the accepted “thing” at the time and to a certain extent still is. He was not alone in this by any means.
He was personally brave and in the Sudan as ADC to Kitchener and Staff Officer with the Egyptian cavalry, he helped to save a large reconnaissance in force from attack and possibly suffering heavy casualties. He personally led the artillery out of danger and in to action at the right time. He also rescued an unhorsed and wounded native trooper under fire during this action.
He later wrote that although the artillery had been effective, had the cavalry been armed and trained with machine guns they would have been even more effective.
He is often quoted as stating in 1915 that “Machine guns were not that important”. This is erroneous as the historian Liddell Hart attributed this to Haig but his source does not confirm exactly who made the comment. It could have been made by one of two Army Commanders or a number of Army Corps Commanders.
Haig had taken the machine gun course himself in 1898 and advocated the use of machine guns in greater numbers. He was enthusiastic that the Lewis Gun was taken in to service as soon as it became available and was forthright in stating his views on the tactical use of the weapon.
He was sure that the tank could be a battle winner and anxious to use the weapon as soon as it became available and placed large orders for the machine. Some say that it was used too early before it had been properly evaluated, but the only way to evaluate a new weapon, regardless of how rigorously it has been tested, is to use it in battle. The effectiveness and tactical application can then be finally decided upon from experience in actual battle. Despite it being used in poor conditions subsequently, it was the main weapon in Haig’s planning for the battle of Cambrai and he was eventually proved right. His plans for the major battles were made in detail and with the right strategic objectives, the downside being that his final objectives were sometimes too distant. However, to achieve one objective it is often necessary to plan a more distant objective to achieve it.
The 1915 battles from Neuve Chapelle to Loos under the command of Sir John French and those of the Somme and Arras were fought at the insistence of and places chosen by the French. Perhaps the only battles Haig fought at a time and place of his own choosing were Messines, Cambrai and those of the 100 days from August to November 1918 and, he still had the French Generals looking over his shoulder at that time as well.
Messines and Passchendaele were his plans and he had wanted to fight them in 1916 but Verdun intervened. Rawlinson, at Haig’s request has been asked to draw up the initial plans for these in February 1916.
Had Haig been able to fight these battles in conjunction with an admittedly difficult assault from North Belgium with perhaps an amphibious landing on the coast, the outcome might have been very different and may even have shortened the war.
The Somme and Passchendaele were carried on for too long. However, there were pressures made upon him to do this. For the Somme by the French and there was also a perceived need to achieve some sort of success after the heavy casualties and to consolidate some high ground before the winter set in so that the British lines were not completely overlooked by the Germans.
The feint attack at Gommecourt, one of the strongest German positions on the Somme, was a costly mistake. Other mistakes were made at all levels at Corps, Divisional, Brigade and Battalion level as we had a half trained Army. The reconstituted Regular battalions bore no resemblance in skill and experience to those who had fought in 1914 and 1915, similarly the Territorials who had been engaged at that time.
The new Territorial units and Kitchener New Army units lacked experience and training. This was especially so for the officers particularly the junior ones.
Haig did not order that inexperienced troops should advance in waves of straight lines; he had always advocated the advance in small groups using fire and movement.
The Artillery equally suffered from lack of experience and training and effective techniques for dealing with wire, trench systems and strongpoints had still to be evolved and learned as had the creeping barrage technique, box barrages, sound ranging etc.
Despite the casualties and set-backs it might be said that the German retreat to the Hindenburg line was the result of the Somme battles.
Messines was an undoubted success. However, in order to consolidate and secure the position, the Gheluvelt plateau and the Flanders ridges had to be secured or the British positions would have been overlooked by the Germans. Once the battle had started there was no choice but to continue it or be shelled to oblivion where they were.
Haig should have ensured that the Messines battle was followed closely by 3rd Ypres (Passchendaele) and pushed his Generals accordingly. However, the sheer logistics of moving up the artillery and materiel required before the next phase of the attack necessitated a pause before the attack could be continued although whether or not it should have been carried out more quickly is open to question. Certainly changing Commanders and Armies did nothing to expedite the situation.
There were also political pressures to keep the battle going due to the setbacks initially, the state of the French Army as discussed with Petain and the situation on the Italian front after the Austro/German attack at Caporetto. The same politicians who wanted him to continue also criticised him for doing so!
Had Haig been given, as he asked for, the men and equipment that were sent to the campaigns in Salonika, Italy, Palestine and Egypt as well as those kept in the UK, then 3rd Ypres may have been brought to a conclusion more rapidly and the German attacks of Spring 1918 dealt with more effectively.
Haig was aware of the impending German attacks and arguably may have ensured that better preparations were made to withstand them. Taking over badly constructed, maintained and sited trench systems from the French did not help the situation however and neither did the manpower shortage due to Lloyd George‘s ill-judged policies.
Haig also “interfered” in the detailed planning of some battles; Loos and the Somme for instance when perhaps he should have left this to his Corps and Divisional Commanders. If, however, their plans did not meet his instructions then he had to show them what he wanted done and how to do it. Some of his generals were at fault also for not pressing their own suggestions. Rawlinson at Loos wanted a limited advance, an early form of bite and hold, but didn’t press his point of view but then he did press his idea for a night attack on the Somme on 14th July 1916, Haig acceded and this was successful.
One criticism of Haig is his use and trust of people he knew well and use of the “old boy” network. But then this has always happened and it is far easier to work with people you know and perhaps more importantly, know their abilities and capabilities. Whether he should have stuck with some for as long as he did is open to debate.
Essentially, Haig may be admired as a soldier but perhaps not a great Commander. Not a genius by any means but capable, intelligent, shrewd and with enormous patience, tact, diplomacy and tenacity. One of the few who believed that the war could only be won on the Western Front by defeating the Germans and also believing that this could be achieved.
Some say that he had no spark of genius like famous Generals before him. Wellington fought his battles at a time when warfare had been fought the same way for nearly a hundred years or so. He lost 30,000 out of an Allied Army of near 120,00 at Waterloo (not including the Prussians). He was not a Napoleon who lost best part of an Army in Egypt, an entire Army in Russia and about 50 per cent of 150,000 at Waterloo.
Both had room to manoeuvre, nearly always a flank to attack and could over see their battles in person. Haig had a fair sized chunk of a row of entrenchments and strongpoints from the Belgian Coast to the Swiss border, millions of men and vast quantities of equipment to wage a war of a type that had never been fought or envisaged before, in either size, scope or destructive power.
Haig was also faced by an enemy with about the same size of forces and similar destructive power and weaponry. Any commander would have found that genius would have been difficult to apply in these circumstances.
Communications were at best poor and the further down the command chain the more difficult they were. At the sharp end, it was the speed that a man could cross a battlefield under fire if he survived that is. And this just to get as far as battalion HQ let alone up as far as GHQ.
This communication problem never approached being resolved in WW1, nor was it fully in WW2.
Sadly, it has still not been fully resolved, even in today’s world of speedy communication as sadly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown recently.
No wonder Haig is sometimes described as being ill informed.
Haig should not be vilified as a butcher. His mistakes were costly in lives as was even the 100 days but then the first mass industrialised war was always going to be.
Heavy casualties were due to the nature of the enemy, the places where it was fought and the weapons technology available at the time. The battles of 1914 and 1915 had shown this but is Field Marshall French vilified for this?
Was Montgomery described as a butcher due to the casualty rates at El Alamein and the breakout from the Normandy bridgehead which were proportionately higher than those for the battle of the Somme?
No Commander likes heavy casualties and Haig was no exception, although he did believe, as did Kitchener, that heavy casualty rates would have to be accepted if a victory were to be achieved.
Others did and still do have a problem with this with a view from 100 years later and a differing outlook.
The number of British and Empire casualties in proportion to the number of troops involved is however, lower than any of the major Allied or enemy nations (except America who entered the war in 1917 but did not build up a significant, effective sized force until mid-1918 - the greater part of their casualties were a result of the ‘flu epidemic in 1918).
Despite the pressures and distractions put upon him, Haig played a major part in bringing about the Allied victory in 1918 and that the British and Empire Armies were capable of sustaining the battles of the 100 days, when open warfare was adopted. That those Armies were equipped, trained, experienced, and led well enough to achieve it, is surely a tribute to Haig as a Commander more than anything else.’
Thank you Tony for that considered response.
++
Next up is Matt Colley, like Tony, a deep thinker about the Great War and another man who has strong opinions and can succinctly lay down his thoughts through the written word, and in this case, Matt has a completely different opinion to Tony.
Matt writes; ‘Haig was responsible for numerous needless slaughtering events of British and Commonwealth troops.
At Ypres in 1914, he realised that if the Germans had kept up the pressure on the over stretched British lines that they would have broken through and probably been unstoppable. He developed his battle philosophy of “One more push’ and relentlessly adhered to it regardless of any information he was receiving.
I will mention just three out of many possible and frankly dreadful examples.
Firstly, the Battle of the Somme in July 1916. Rawlinson and his Chief of Staff had developed a plan of attack based on the methodical reduction of enemy strong points by artillery and a step by step advance of the infantry - “Bite and Hold”. Haig rejected this as he wanted something bolder “with the chance of breaking through the German line”. In one day Haig delivered 57470 dead, wounded and missing for tiny gains.
Then just seven days later - the Battle of Mametz Wood. The first attack by Welsh soldiers was a frontal attack across open ground in daylight, the troops were mown down by machine gun fire and the Commanding Officer ordered a retreat. Haig responded by sacking this Officer and demanding that his replacement resumed the attack. Three days later a dawn attack, preceded by an artillery barrage only gets the 38th (Welsh) Division to the edge of the Wood and unleashes a further three days of brutal hand to hand fighting. Casualties amounted to near one fifth of the Division’s strength. (I should bring readers attention to the fact that Gary Sheffield does not mention this Battle at all in either his 'Forgotten Victory' or 'a short History of the First World War" books.) With British losses approaching one hundred thousand men in less than a fortnight, the Politicians (safely at home in Westminster) should have removed Haig from command but didn’t.
Instead Haig remained in charge and developed the plans for the 1917 Third Battle of Ypres. - also known as Passchendaele. Unbelievably the Politicians demanded that Haig’s plans include “the expulsion of the enemy from the Belgian Coast” - primarily because of the U-Boat threat from Ostend and Zeebrugge. This was despite the absence of this scale of breakthrough in nearly three years of bloody warfare.
Haig had previously received a written report warning that the geography of the area would not allow sustained artillery bombardments as this would destroy the medieval drainage systems and that any rainwater would not disperse. Instead, the opening bombardment was greater than the one at the start of the Somme the year before. Very rapidly the Battle descended into attritional warfare with agonisingly slow forward progress. Truly awful summer weather then turned the entire area into a quagmire. Haig’s Generals asked that he cease the attacks and he refused instead demanding that they continue. The result was the near impossibility of moving the artillery forward to support the infantry. Yet again men were being asked to attack machine gun positions unsupported and across open ground. In one hundred days some five miles of ground was captured at the cost of a quarter of a million dead, injured or missing.
The Revisionist historians such as Gary Sheffield and John Terraine, seem more interested in provoking a debate about Lions and Donkeys in the interests of book sales than in actually understanding the facts. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Lions were being kicked by someone with the temperament of a mule. Perhaps they would have been better asking “did the British Army succeed despite Haig?"
It would seem that things could hardly be any worse than this - yet David Hutchison’s excellent book “Mons an Artillery Battle” raises a horrible spectre.
David has studied the records in the National Archives and his conclusion is staggering and I quote; “Not only did General Haig disobey orders and refuse to advance his Corps into the battle line, but he wilfully misled both his colleagues as to his intentions. This breached Army Regulations and endangered the whole force. If the full details of his actions on the day had been publicly known at the time, he would have been dismissed for incompetence, and probably court martialled.”
So the very man responsible for so many lost lives, with enormous quantities of blood being spilt in the reckless pursuit of his 'One More Push principle', should actually have never have been appointed as a replacement to General French.’
Thank you Matt. Very powerful words and your comment about Gary Sheffield and not understanding the facts! made me smile – big time.
So, there we have it, two readers two views. The enigma that is Douglas Haig, still produces incredibly strong opinions all these years later. That is why we are in thrall to the Great War and the men and women of all ranks who served so loyally, bravely and dutifully to ensure eventual victory.
I would dearly love to hear from more of you with thoughts on Haig. Please give it a go and let me have your views.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The last colourised photos from Chris at Colour by CJS for 2025 are Lieutenant Thomas Baldock, 2nd Lieutenant William Moncur and Private Ernest Palfrey. I have saved up all three of these men and their biographies, as they are all linked to December and Christmas.
Lieutenant Thomas Agnew Baldock.
Thomas was born in 1896 and lived at his family home in West Malling, Kent. He was educated at Winchester College, where he was remembered as being a fine footballer. He played for both his house and school XI’s.
When Thomas left Winchester College in the summer of 1914 he pursued a career in law. However, following the outbreak of war, he enlisted in the Inns of Court Officer Training Corps in January 1915, aged 19.
He was granted a commission in June 1915 and in September that year joined 8th Battalion, The Rifle Brigade in France.
He fought in the Battle of the Somme where he commanded a trench mortar battery, and was then wounded on 12th April 1917 during the Battle of Arras.
After a period of convalescence, he re-joined his battalion and was promoted to company commander during the 3rd Battle of Ypres.
Thomas was mortally wounded near the village of Passchendaele on 2nd December 1917 and he died the following day.
Thomas Baldock was just 21 years old, and today, he lies in Ypres Reservoir Cemetery.
++
Second Lieutenant William George Moncur
William was from Edinburgh and he served in 11th Battalion, Royal Scots (Lothian Regiment).
William was posted missing after a raid on German trenches on December 24th 1917. It was later established that he had been severely wounded and taken prisoner by the Germans, where he sadly died of his wounds in captivity on Christmas Day 1917.
William Moncur was 23 years old, and today he is buried in Honnechy British Cemetery.
++
Private Ernest Palfrey
Ernest was from Abersychan, Monmouth, Wales. Before the war he was a colliery workman at Llanerch, where he was described as “a steady young man”.
Like many young men, he enlisted on 27th August 1914 and was deployed to France with 2nd Battalion, Monmouthshire Regiment on 7th November that year.
When Christmas 1914 arrived, his battalion were holding eleven hundred yards of front line trench north east of Armentières.
The unit war diary states that there was “practically no firing by either side by mutual agreement” on Christmas day. It wastherefore, decided to use the truce to bury the dead that lay in no man’s land and to “ascertain what German Regiment opposed us”.
Ernest was a member of the party detailed to gather and bury the dead. They had completed their gruesome task and were no doubt relieved to be heading back to the relative safety of their trench, when a single shot broke the silence and hit Ernest in the head killing him instantly.
Ernest Palfrey was 21 years old, and today he lies in Calvaire (Essex) Military Cemetery.
This incident exposes the myth that on Christmas Day 1914 the whole front was peaceful with fraternisation, football and exchanges of presents.
++
CWGC records reveal that 148 British and Commonwealth soldiers died on Christmas day 1914 in France, Belgium, the UK, Africa and India. Not all were as a result of fighting on this day, many died in hospital at Etaples, Rouen and Boulogne from wounds received earlier in the war. Soldiers also died on duty in Kenya and India and at home.
Despite the well documented Christmas Truce near Ploegsteert, in many sectors of the front it was business as usual with heavy sniping and artillery exchanges.
Even where an informal armistice was agreed upon, it was often short-lived or only partial.
The following men are known to have been killed by enemy action on Christmas Day 1914.
Pte. David Devonshire - 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards
Pte. William Bannister - 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards - Age 18
Sgt. Thomas Gregory - 1st Battalion, Hertfordshire Regiment - Age 36
Pte. Percy Huggins - 1st Battalion, Hertfordshire Regiment - Age 23
Pte. Henry Dolphin - 2nd Battalion, Welch Regiment - Age 15
Pte. John Kenneally - 2nd Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers - Age 19
Pte. William Lyons - 2nd Battalion, Royal Munster Fusiliers - Age 28
L/Cpl. George Sutton - 1st Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment - Age 27
Pte. James Farrell - 1st Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment
Pte. Albert Fenwick - 2nd Battalion., York and Lancaster Regiment
Capt. Charles Watts - 2nd Battalion, Northamptonshire Regiment - Age 32
Pte. Richard Gregory - 2nd Battalion, Devonshire Regiment - Age 26
Sgt. Frank Collins - 2nd Battalion, Monmouthshire Regiment - Age 39. Shot after delivering cigarettes to the Germans. [As featured in TL recently - Ed]
L/Cpl. Thomas Gallagher - 2nd Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment
Pte. John Brown - 2nd Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment
Pte. James Savage - 2nd Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment
Pte. John Cameron - 2nd Battalion, Gordon Highlanders - Age 24
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
A big thank you to Chris at Colour by CJS for all of his ongoing work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In Memoriam the Lincolnshire Regiment 28th December.
1914
12881 Private William Hoare, 1st Battalion. Buried in Le Touquet Paris-Plage Cemetery, France.
1916
21627 Private J Harrison, 7th Battalion. Buried in Grove Town Cemetery, France.
10757 Private A McMahon, 6th Battalion, aged 39. Buried in Englebelmer Communal Cemetery, France.
1917
18724 Private E Ormsby, 7th Battalion. Buried in Lincoln Newport Cemetery, UK.
38451 Private R Parkin, 8th Battalion, aged 19. Buried in Outtersteene Communal Cemetery, France.
241219 Private H Cant, 5th Battalion. Buried in Cambrin Military Cemetery, France.
1918
6184 Private F C Harston, 1st Battalion, aged 33. Buried in Hamburg Cemetery, Germany.
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.
It just leaves me to wish you all a Very Happy, Healthy and Peaceful New Year.
Until next year!
All best wishes
Jonathan
© Jonathan D’Hooghe
Comments