|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
This topic was briefly covered in the 'This Day in History' thread on the general history forum. I've since delved back into my old books (tearing myself away from my current ongoing study of the American West) and came across this passage in Les Carlyon's 'The Great War':
'The next day, March 24, was one of the critical moments of the Great War. The Germans kept coming. They were now close to Bapaume and the old Somme battlefield. A gap opened north of the Somme between Gough and Byng's armies. In the evening Clemenceau dined with Petain. They discussed moving ministries and their staffs from Paris to Tours. Petain's fears were starting to overwhelm him. At 11pm he arrived at Haig's advanced headquarters on the southern outskirts of Amiens.
The way Haig tells it, Petain was 'very much upset, almost unbalanced and most anxious'. Haig told Petain of his plans to bring reserves, including four Anzac divisions, south to help Byng. He again asked Petain to concentrate as many French divisions as possible in front of Amiens. Petain said he expected to be attacked in Champagne at any moment. He did not think the main German blow had yet been delivered. He said he had told General Fayolle that if the Germans continued to advance on Amiens, he (Fayolle) was to fall backwards to cover Paris. This would separate the French and British armies.
Haig wrote in his diary: 'I at once asked Petain if he meant to abandon my right flank. He nodded assent and added "it is the only thing possible, if the enemy compelled the Allies to fall back still further".' Haig assumed Petain had orders to cover Paris at all costs.
And now Haig finally realised he had a crisis. He had taken over extra front on the understanding that the French would help him if there was a big attack. He was being told the arrangement was off. He had operated on all along on the understanding that the French and British armies should not be separated. This arrangement also seemed to be off. Haig's army was in peril. It was possible that Britain and France could lose the war. Petain's defeatism had to be checked.'
In this context, Haig aceded to the need for an Allied 'supreme commander' to co-ordinate the strategy of the Anglo-French armies. Petain had lost his head and the French would turn and run south under him. Haig wanted to fight in front of Amiens, to preserve the British hub of logistics and supply and turn the Germans back. He knew that the French would defend Paris over the Amiens; crucially, it seems the Germans knew it too. Splitting the Allied armies and their defeat in detail seemed finally within their grap.
On 26th March 1918, there were a series of meetings between French and British ministers and generals; after much debate, whereby Haig may or may not have explictly stated he wished to fall back to the Channel ports and whereby Petain refused to commit any French resources to the defence of Amiens, the Allies agreed upon Foch as a sort of co-ordinator-in-chief. He could set out the strategy, but senior officers had the right to appeal to their respective governments if they believed Foch's strategy was putting them in mortal danger. Compare Foch's limited authority with that of his German opponents, Ludeondorff and Hindenburg, or indeed Eisenhower a generation down the line. Foch had to be the ultimate salesman, selling his strategy of preserving the British armies to save France.
The scene was set and the Allies would fight it out, hoping to turn the Germans back or at least hold them until the Americans could arrive in substantial numbers. Without Doullens, the Allies may have split, been defeated in detail and sought separate peace agreements. Doullens chipped away at the egos of many, but surely it was a price worth paying?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Thanks for pitching in with this, Colin.
In the This Day in History section we did allude to the Doullens Conference, and you mentioned that you’d make a contribution to the topic in this WW1 sector.
When we think of the seriousness of the crisis that befell the Allies on the Western Front in the spring of 1918 ; the scale and intensity of the German attack and the febrile nature of the relationship between the leading soldiers and statesmen, the achievement was remarkable.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Hi Phil,
Thanks for coming in on this.
I've been contemplating the idea of coalition warfare, where the leader of the army of one nation directly commands the others. Off the top of my head, the Greek city states formed a loose coalition to defeat the Persians on a few occasions; Aetius led the Romans, Visigoths and Alans (and others) to victory at Chalons. In more recent times, and perhaps more to your interest, John Churchill commanded the coalition in his splendid victory at Blenheim; Arthur Wellesley became something of a past master of leading troops of differing nationalities and priorities in his time in the British army. So, clearly, it wasn't a new concept to have your troops led by another person - as the fledgling nations of the Empire experienced in the Boer War and the subsequent world wars.
Where Doullens differs, IMO, is that the players were those old frenemies (using a modern word for an ancient rivalry), Britain and France. In the Crimean War, they co-ordinated well enough but couldn't agree upon a command and control structure. I suspect had the Anglo-French adventurists got their way and the principle European powers had intervened in the American Civil War, this issue of who was in charge would have arisen again. Similarly, in the run up to the First World War, the British eventually committed to sending an expeditionary force to generally support the French, but the BEF planners made sure that they had a way off the continent should things go awry. Sir John French wanted to remove the BEF from the line entirely just prior to the Battle of the Marne so he could rest and refit (at a time when France was sending soldiers by taxi to the front line); he was overruled, but I suspect the French never forgot or forgave the British for having one eye on the ports.
This brings us to Doullens; the British wanted to fight in front of Amiens to protect the rail hub, but I suspect also probably to keep the back door open should the outlook appear irreversible. France was willing to fight at Amiens, but not at the expense of defending Paris. This strategic stalemate, around which a robust debate occured which probably felt like weeks when it was ultimately resolved in days, was, IMO, potentially more dangerous at this point in time than any of the German manouvres. If the Allies could not agree upon on a strategy, how could they hope to counter Germany? Allied inertia, as we found out in 1940, was more lethal than any stormtrooper or Panzer unit.
It is easy for us to lambast the Allied leadership; with our gift of hindsight, their entire war effort on the Western Front and elsewhere should have had a defined Supreme Commander by early 1915 at the latest. That the Allies were still debating overall strategy in early 1918 tells you everything about the state of relations and emotions between Britain and France; the very best of enemies and friends merely by circumstance. Goodness knows what Pershing thought of it all when he showed up.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Colin,
You have an interesting perspective on this.
The thing that imposes itself on me more and more in my thinking is the extent that the Entente achievement in the Great War has been underrated .
This was an innately fragile relationship . The Fashoda Crisis was a recent memory. There is so much adverse commentary about the French in Haig’s diary that it’s almost embarrassing to read. No doubt the French reciprocated. And yet, despite his vituperative references to the French, Haig, by his deeds, was a good coalitionist.
Papa Joffre was a stout advocate of coalition warfare, keeping his eye on the awful pressure that the Russians and Serbians were bearing in 1915, even though this entailed the most lavish expenditure of Franco - British lives in horrific battles: Artois, Champagne and other bloodbaths are only comprehensible if we remember how determined Joffre was in discharging coalition obligations.
Doullens was, in my opinion, the ultimate test of this relationship under pretty desperate circumstances, and it passed that test.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Phil,
Joffre was a coalitionist if the participants suited the aims of France. Britain wasn't ready to fight the Battle of the Somme and Haig knew it. He agreed to attack after Joffre jumped up and down listing the French casualties at Verdun. The result was a bloodbath, and we have memorials across the UK and Ireland showing a marked increase of the war dead in the summer of 1916.
That Joffre was keen to assist the Serbs and the Russians shows the lack of the overall strategy - nobody had really agreed what the plan was other than to win. Gallipoli, Salonika and the Italian fronts were all tried without much in the way of success. The African and Pacific adventures made for ripping tales, but realists like Haig (and for all his faults, Kitchener) knew that the only way to defeat Germany was to crush the German armies in France and Belgium. Precious allied divisions, a scarce commodity at any time, were frittered away in expeditions. They should have been concentrated long before on the Western Front, to hammer the Germans before they pulled their forces from Russia to the west. The British and French had no real need to knock the Ottomans out of the war, IMO. A naval blockade and fortification of the Suez Canal would have achieved the same results as the campaigns in Palestine and beyond.
I wonder if in the spring of 1918 whether Haig, Petain and Foch regretted the diversion of resources elsewhere? Haig talked of sending just four weary Anzac divisions to the rescue; how many divisions languished abroad in fruitless missions? The fight was in the West and their backs were to the wall. As you say, the relationship was tested, but it prevailed. I wonder if we will ever know how close it came to snapping?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Colin,
When Haig was showing his notorious determination to crush the Germans in Flanders by his offensive in the later months of 1917, the Germans succeeded in defeating Russia, demolishing Romania and , to make the cup run over, they nearly knocked Italy for six, too .
This was when Haig was insisting that he could expect decisive results by pressing on towards Passchendaele.
Was he really a realist, if you’ll forgive the pun ?
I’m not a Haig basher, but I do have misgivings.
In March 1918 , attacked on a single sector of Picardy by sixty three German divisions backed up by a barrage from ten thousand guns and heavy mortars, his claims for his Flanders offensive must have started to ring false.
As for Joffre’s ranting in May 1916, this arose because Haig suggested postponing his Somme attack until August. He was certainly justified in this : the British were not ready in terms of ordnance. Joffre cited the toll of Verdun as the reason to attack earlier, but my feeling is that the Frenchman was anxious to uphold coalition commitments as agreed at Chantilly in December 1915.
The Russians had made a fatal attack which failed in March 1916, in large degree to support the French who were under critical pressure at Verdun. Joffre was resolved to reciprocate, especially since the Russian armies were about to launch one of the most successful offensives of the war under Brusilov’s command.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
|
Quote:
Was he really a realist, if you’ll forgive the pun ?
Phil
Hi Phil,
Sorry for the tardy reply.
I certainly can't agree with Haig that carrying on the offensive at Passchendaele was worth it. However, I do agree that the war would be won or lost in the west. Germany defeating Romania or Italy would have had little effect on the western front from the perspective of the Allies. Where it did matter was keeping Russia in the war; those German divisions transported west nearly tipped the balance.
Haig (and the rest) must surely have done the numbers and worked out that Germany couldn't be worn down at the edges. If we go forward a generation to the Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy, can we really say that the Allied efforts there did more than expend valuable blood and lives? Germany was defeated on the main fronts (principally the east), not by the smaller campaigns in Africa and Italy. Similarly, Germany was defeated on the western front in WW1, which is why the Allied efforts to co-ordinate their attempts to stem the German advance were so critical.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Phil,
Just a short reminder. The Central Powers over ran Rumania in 1916, not 1917.
Enjoying this thread. Will contribute when I can.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
|
Quote: Phil,
Just a short reminder. The Central Powers over ran Rumania in 1916, not 1917.
Enjoying this thread. Will contribute when I can.
Trevor
Yes, Falkenhayn made short work of Rumania when he took the reins there in later 1916.
But, if I’m right, the Rumanians made a kind of comeback the following year, and were fighting quite hard with Entente and Russian support in 1917.
There were some quite big battles that were fought by Rumanian forces in 1917.
I’m firing from the hip here ; I’ll check things, and apologies if I’ve got it wrong.
Edit : Moldavia, July to September 1917, Rumanians made some gains in a battle with a name I can’t pronounce, let alone spell : Marasasti ?
A French military mission gave significant help, and there were still some Russian contingents, too. Quite intense fighting, and appreciable German and Austro Hungarian casualties.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Quote:Quote: Phil,
Just a short reminder. The Central Powers over ran Rumania in 1916, not 1917.
Enjoying this thread. Will contribute when I can.
Trevor Yes, Falkenhayn made short work of Rumania when he took the reins there in later 1916. But, if I’m right, the Rumanians made a kind of comeback the following year, and were fighting quite hard with Entente and Russian support in 1917. There were some quite big battles that were fought by Rumanian forces in 1917. I’m firing from the hip here ; I’ll check things, and apologies if I’ve got it wrong. Edit : Moldavia, July to September 1917, Rumanians made some gains in a battle with a name I can’t pronounce, let alone spell : Marasasti ? A French military mission gave significant help, and there were still some Russian contingents, too. Quite intense fighting, and appreciable German and Austro Hungarian casualties. Regards, Phil
Right Phil. I´d forgotten that. The Rumanians didn´t surrender but retreated into Moldovia which was then part of the Russian Empire.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
Let me say, Trevor, that I know next to nothing about this front.
Rumania suffered an enormous number of deaths in the war, both in combat and in the wake of epidemic diseases . The civilian mortality was also appalling. That makes the relative obscurity of its war all the more remarkable .
Much the same might be said of Bulgaria.
The Serbian ordeal is more widely known and acknowledged.
The Iron Chancellor knew whereof he spoke, when he said that if a huge conflict was to come, it would emanate from “ some damned thing in The Balkans” !
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
The Iron Chancellor was surely right that something would start there, but it certainly wouldn't finish there. With war upon them, the Allies had to face down Germany where it was strongest.
That's not to downplay the efforts of Rumania and Bulgaria; their soldiers fought bravely and the civilians suffered immensely. What is clear is that even an Allied check on Germany's advances in the east would not bring victory in the west.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Doullens Conference & the beginning of the end
|
|
Quote: The Iron Chancellor was surely right that something would start there, but it certainly wouldn't finish there. With war upon them, the Allies had to face down Germany where it was strongest.
That's not to downplay the efforts of Rumania and Bulgaria; their soldiers fought bravely and the civilians suffered immensely. What is clear is that even an Allied check on Germany's advances in the east would not bring victory in the west.
Cheers,
Colin
Agreed. The German army had to be beaten, and that entailed fighting it preponderantly in France and Flanders.
The Eastern Front and the Balkans were important, though, and I feel that insufficient weight is given to them in British perceptions of the Great War. My own lack of knowledge about these fronts attests that.
It’s significant that, when Ludendorff suffered a nervous breakdown in September 1918, it was when he received news of Bulgaria surrendering.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
