1.5 Leadership

There were of course thousands of Scottish leaders during WW1. They included Piper Daniel Laidlaw of the King's Own Scottish Borderers who was awarded the Victoria Cross ...

"For most conspicuous bravery prior to an assault on German trenches near Loos and Hill 70 on 25 September 1915. During the worst of the bombardment, Piper Laidlaw, seeing that his company was badly shaken from the effects of gas, with absolute coolness and disregard of danger, mounted the parapet, marched up and down and played company out of the trench. The effect of his splendid example was immediate and the company dashed out to the assault. Piper Laidlaw continued playing his pipes until he was wounded."



Then there were the officers. Men such as Colonel George McCrae (above), a former Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who recruited and commanded the 16th Royal Scots which included the Hearts footballers. When McCrae died after the war, thousands of Edinburgh folk lined the streets to pay their respects.

However, when historians discuss the issue of leadership during WW1, the debate always focuses on one Scot only:General, later Field Marshal Douglas Haig ...



The debate about Haig's leadership is a bitter one. Achieving a balanced view can be difficult.

Source 1

Watch this clip from a BBC documentary about Haig. Is it favourable to or critical of Haig?

">

Source 2

Now watch this clip. It gives a more balanced view of Haig.
">

Source 3: Historian Tevor Royle discusses the attacks made by some historians on Haig ...

"Haig was all too often treated as a cardboard cut out ... According to the stereotype Haig was a dull witted cavalry officer ... who stubbornly continued fighting the war with the debased tactics of attrition because he lacked the ability to find other ways of winning battles. Owing his position to influence, he back stabbed his way to power and held onto it with a ruthlessness that matched his indifference to high casualty figures and then re-cast the record in his diaries to put himself in a good light. Even the fact that he was a serious minded Christian has been held against him ..."

Source 4

The historian John Terraine was one of the first historians to publish a revision of Haig's reputation. He offers a very positive point of view ...

His attitude towards tanks is most revealing of all. Without even having seen them, he detected in them the possibility of 'decisive results', and after their debut, which many thought equivocal, to say the least, he sent his Deputy Chief of Staff to London to demand 1,000 tanks without delay. I need hardly add, he never got them.

He summed up his attitude towards the technicalities of the war after a meeting between Ministers and Generals to discuss new weapons at the end of 1915; he said:

I thought the meeting was good for the generals as well as for the Government. Generals after a certain time of life, especially French, are apt to be narrow-minded and disinclined to take advantage of modern scientific discoveries. The civilian Minister can do good by pressing the possibility of some modem discovery.

The war of technology was also a war of organisation. It was called - without affection - a Staff Officer's war, and so it was, because armies of millions require an enormous apparatus of administration. As early as 1916 the BEF contained a 'population' larger than any single unit of government except London in all England. Haig's attitude to this feature was equally broad-minded:

.... with the whole nation at war, our object should be to employ men on the same work in war as they are accustomed to do in peace. Acting on this principle I have got Geddes at the head of all the railways and transportation, with the best practical civil and military engineers under him. At the head of the Road Directorate is Mr. Maybury, head of the Road Board in England. The docks, canals and inland water transport are being managed in the same way, i.e., by men of practical experience. To put soldiers who have no practical experience of these matters into such positions, merely because they are generals and colonels, must result in utter failure.

Haig was, in fact, a modern general, fighting Britain's first modern war.

Modern wars are costly wars; they consume lives by the million, on and off the battlefield, and it was the shock of this consumption of soldiers' lives that prompted the unthinking execration of Haig - as though one man could halt or change an industrial revolution!

What, then, was Haig's own view of the great battles of attrition in 1916 and 1917 with which his name is so fatally connected?

He certainly had no illusions about their nature; in his Despatch (6) of 21 December 1918, The Advance to Victory, he says:

The strain of those years was never ceasing, the demands they made upon the best of the Empire's manhood are now known. Yet throughout all those years, and amid the hopes and disappointments they brought with them, the confidence of our troops in final victory never wavered. Their courage and resolution rose superior to every test, their cheerfulness never failing, however terrible the conditions in which they lived and fought. By the long road they trod with so much faith and with such devoted and self-sacrificing bravery we have arrived at victory.

His Final Despatch, March 1919 (leaving no doubts about his feelings), develops the thought:

... neither the course of the war itself nor the military lessons to be drawn there from can properly be comprehended, unless the long succession of battles commenced on the Somme in 1916 and ended in November of last year on the Sambre are viewed as forming part of one great and continuous engagement..... If the operations of the past four and a half years are regarded as a single continuous campaign, there can be recognised in them the same general features and the same necessary stages which between forces of approximately equal strength have marked all the conclusive battles of history.

Haig had taught his theory of the necessary stages of war in India in 1909 and never departed from it:

1. The manoeuvre for position

2. The first clash of battle

3. The wearing-out fight

4. The decisive blow

It is, of course, the third stage - what he called 'the wearing-out fight' (in other words the three years of attrition during which four-fifths of Britain's casualties were incurred) - which has commanded so much unfavourable notice for so long. Haig's own view of it is quite clear:

In the stage of the wearing-out struggle losses will necessarily be heavy on both sides, for in it the price of victory is paid. If the opposing forces are approximately equal in numbers, in courage, in morale and in equipment, there is no way of avoiding payment of the price, or of eliminating this phase of the struggle. In former battles this stage of the conflict has rarely lasted more than a few days, and has often been completed in a few hours. When armies of millions are engaged, with the resources of great Empires behind them, it will inevitably be long. It will include violent crises of fighting which, when viewed separately and apart from the general perspective, will appear individually as great indecisive battles. To this stage belong the great engagements of 1916 and 1917 which wore down the strength of the German Armies.

So Haig made no attempt to avoid responsibility for the war of attrition; he never tried to claim credit for victory, and blame something or someone else for the hard part - e.g. subordinates, Allies, the Government, the troops, bad luck, etc. Instead, he insisted:

If the whole operations of the present war are regarded in correct perspective, the victories of the summer and autumn of 1918 will be seen to be directly dependent upon the two years of stubborn fighting that preceded them.

This, it seems to me, is the wisest statement written about the Great War. A great pity that it was totally disregarded during the peace, so that everything had to be painfully learned again the second time.

In conclusion, what is Haig's place in our military history? ...

...Haig's armies did actually themselves engage the enemy's main body. In 1916 the BEF fought ninety-five and a half identified German divisions (forty-three and a half twice, four three times, which makes a divisional total of 143). In 1917, in the Battles of Arras, Messines, Lens and Third Ypres, the BEF engaged 131 identified divisions. When the Germans attacked the British front in March-April 1918, they used 109 divisions - fifty on the first day alone.

In Haig's Final Offensive, the BEF encountered ninety-nine German divisions (some twice, some three times, some even four times).

This was the 'main body' indeed. Never, at any time, in any war, has a British army performed such feats as these.

Sir Winston Churchill, in a memorable phrase, described the year 1940 as 'the finest hour' of the British people. Objective assessment must equally describe 1918 as 'the finest hour' of the British Army, and to no-one was that fact more due than to its admirable Commander-in-Chief.

So which argument is correct: Haig the Donkey, stupid and indifferent to the slaughter his plans caused or Haig the modern General, architect of Britain's greatest military victory?

You be the judge.

1.4 "The ladies from Hell"!

This post covers the following sections of the course: the kilted regiments; the role of Scottish military personnel in terms of commitment, casualties.

"Ladies from Hell" was a nickname given by the Germans to the kilted regiments of the British Army: the Gordon Highlanders (Aberdeen and the North East), the Black Watch (Perthshire and Fife), The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Argyll, Stirling and central Scotland); The Seaforth Highlanders (Inverness and Morayshire).

The kilted regiments included the territorial battalions. These were part time soldiers who were called up for service in August 1914. They had to volunteer for service overseas but very few refused. The Territorials made a significant contribution to the fighting from the start right through to the Armistice.

The kilted regiments also included regiments raised in England such as the London Scottish and the Liverpool Scottish. Some Canadian Regiments also wore the kilt for the same reason: they were recruited from Scottish emigrants and wanted to identify themselves as Scots.

The Germans used the nickname "ladies from Hell" as an insult but the Scots took it as a compliment: it marked them out as a force to be reckoned with - aggressive soldiers who inspired fear in the enemy. Some historians have even compared this attitude to the Glasgow airport worker who attacked terrorist bombers in 2008.

">



However, having a reputation as a "hard man" can have its down side. Read this article from the The Sunday Times.

Historian Professor Tom Devine also says ...

Source

“From the 18th century onwards, the Scottish regiments were the military cutting edge of the British empire and were always used in a spearhead role, and that meant huge casualties,”

Is Professor Devine correct? He makes two claims ...

1. Scottish regiments (all of them, not just the kilted regiments) were used in a "spearhead role". Another term for this is "shock troops".

2. The consequences of this was that Scottish casualties were huge. It is implied that Scottish casualties must have been higher than casualties of other British and Empire troops.

What does the evidence say?

Scottish regiments certainly made very important contributions to major battles on the western front. You can find out about Loos and the Somme on other pages of this blog. Another very important attack was the battle of Arras in 1917. This saw a concentration of 44 Scottish battalions and seven Scottish named Canadian battalions,
attacking on the first day, making it the largest concentration of Scots to have fought together. One third of the 159,000 British casualties were Scottish.

Scotland's population was around 1/10th of the population of Britain.

Figures for WW1 casualties can be unreliable and there is some argument among historians about the totals. However, here are some figures quoted by historian Niall Ferguson in his book, "The Pity of War" ...

Source

Percentage killed of all mobilised

Grand total - 13.4%
Britain and Ireland - 11.8%
British Empire - 8.8%
Scotland - 26.4%
France - 16.8%
Turkey - 26.8%
Serbia - 37.1%
Germany - 15.4%

Percentage killed of males 15-49

Grand total - 4.0%
Britain and Ireland - 6.3%
British Empire - 0.2%
Scotland - 10.9%
France - 13.3%
Turkey - 14.8%
Serbia - 22.7%
Germany - 12.5%

Percentage killed of population

Grand total - 1.0%
Britain and Ireland - 1.6%
British Empire - 0.1%
Scotland - 3.1%
France - 3.4%
Turkey - 3.7%
Serbia - 5.7%
Germany - 3.0%

1.3 The Somme

The Battle of the Somme

Key points

Plan was similar to that of Loos:

Joint planning with French
Attack on a German "salient". (A bulge into the allied lines.)
Use of artillery. This time a massive 7 day bombardment was planned.

The plan fell apart for similar reasons:

Although the artillery bombardment was impressive, it failed to knock out the German defences which were deeply dug into the chalk uplands over which the battle was fought.
Again, the British attack came up against very heavily defended German strongholds. It was impossible for the soldiers to break through.

The consequence was that July 1st, the first day of the attack, saw 58 000 British casualties. Most of these fell in the first hour or so.

Watch this clip from a BBC documentary.

">

The casualties as a % of the British Army total did not include as many Scots as at Loos the year before. However, the number of Scottish troops who took part was considerable: 3 Scottish Divisions took part - 9th, 15th and 51st Highland and 51 infantry battalions took part in the battle at some time. Some Scottish battalions such as the 16 th Royal Scots who took part in the first day's attack, suffered badly. This battalion of the Royal Scots had been raised in Edinburgh and included the whole of the Heart of Midlothian first team and many other footballers and sportsmen as well as teachers, university lecturers etc. Almost three quarters of the battalion were killed or wounded on July 1st.

The Hearts memorial at Contalmaison on the Somme.



After the slaughter on the first day, the battle settled down into a battle of attrition: an attempt to grind the German defences down with a series of attacks. The battle finally ground to a halt in October 1916.

The Somme was significant because it marked the beginning of the middle phase of the war: the point at which the British army began to take over from the French as the main attacking force against the Germans. It also made the British public realise the true costs of war in terms of casualties. The Scots of course, had learned that lesson the year before at Loos.

The conduct of the battle of the Somme is also used by some historians who criticise the leadership of Douglas Haig. You will look at that debate in another post on this blog.

British "walking wounded" making their way to a field dressing station during the batlle. Notice the German prisoner (wearing a cap) walking with them.

1.2 The experience of Scots on the Western Front / Battle of Loos

The Battle of Loos





THe Battle was part of a series of battles by the allies to attack the large German salient which ran from Flanders to Verdun. The French would attack in the south, the British in the north.

British battles of Neuve Chapelle, Aubers Ridge, Festubert and Loos.

Loos involved the first of Kitchener’s New Army divisions.

Scottish losses were so dreadful that no part of Scotland was unaffected. The Black Watch (raised in Tayside) had massive casualties; the 9th lost 680 officers and men in the first hours of the fighting. Of 950 men of the 6th Cameronians who went into battle, 700 were casualties.

A relatively meaningless battle in terms of what it achieved. Like the Somme, it was intended to be a joint French-British offensive. Haig was sceptical owing to the lack of artillery and introduction of new army units. He was overruled by Kitchener. Haig felt he did not have enough men and his reserves were far behind the front line. Gas was to be used to make up for the lack of artillery.

Loos deserves to be called a Scottish battle owing to the large number of Scottish troops in action: 30,000 took part in the attack. Of 72 infantry battalions taking part in the first phase of the battle, half were Scottish.

Some of the features of the Battle of the Somme (July 1916) were to be played out first at Loos. Unfortunately, the British Army failed to pay enough attention to these points.

1. The difficulty of attacking powerful German defences.

The attack came up against stiff German opposition organised in strong points such as the Hohenzollern Redoubt, Fosse 8 and Hill 70. The British attack broke down owing to German reinforcement of their position and time it took to get the reserve units up to support the limited successes of the first day.

2. The importance of artillery.

Eye witnesses commented on the power of the artillery bombardment at Loos. It was simply not powerful enough. Poison gas was used by the British for the first time. This was an attempt to make up for the weakness of the artillery. The inadequate supply of artillery shells was a cause of a major political crisis in 1915. This helped to weaken the position of the Liberal government and of the British army commander Sir John French. General Haig used his powerful connections with Buckingham Palace to undermine French and he replaced him as commander in December 1915.

Five Victoria Crosses were given to Scots after the battle in recognition of their extraordinary bravery.

Of the 20,598 names of the dead on the memorial at Loos one-third are Scottish. The Battle of Loos was a "wake up call" for the people of Scotland. They got a very early warning of just how serious the fighting and the casualties would be. The rest of Britain would catch up when the Battle of the Somme took place the following summer.

1.1 Scots on the Western Front / Recruitment

1.1 Recruitment


The photograph shows men of the 15th battalion Highland Light Infantry. Despite the name, most recruits came from Glasgow. The 15th were famous as "the dandy boys in Green", all drivers and conductors of Glasgow's "shoogly trams". The rush of recruits caused a severe shortage of army uniforms so the "dandy boys" simply wore their green Glasgow trams uniforms!

This source highlights key factors which caused the rush of voluntary recruitment in Scotland between July and October of 1914. Why did so many volunteer?

Patriotism and Pride: Many volunteered because of their pride in Scotland and Britain. They were proud of and determined to defend the British Empire. Pride in their local communities was important too especially for the Glasgow Tramcar boys and other "Pals" battalions - all recruited from the same communities, the same Scout and BB companies and even the same families.

Escape: The Tramcar boys had a good employer in Glasgow City Corporation (Council) but many workers did not. Volunteering for the army was an escape from the grind of boring, low paid jobs and unemployment. Scotland had a very high rate of volunteer recruitment for this reason. When conscription was introduced in 1916, many Scots workers were NOT forced to join the army since their jobs, e.g. engineering / munitions, were often considered of vital national importance. Despite this fact, voluntary recruitment remained high in Scotland.

Proving yourself worthy: The "warrior race" myth had a powerful effect on young minds especially if they were subjected to pressure from employers (some landowners offered to keep jobs open for volunteers for when they returned), girl friends (some women gave white feathers to young men who were not in uniform) and relentless pressure from the media ...



Finally, many Catholic Scots (mostly first or second generation Irish immigrants) saw military service as a good way of proving their loyalty and defending fellow Catholics in Belgium and France.

Background: Martial Traditions

The Scots: are they a "warrior race"?

Source 1 - The Krankies: Scottish pantomime act.




Source 2 - West Lothian's own Susan Boyle



All right. Calm down. Stop laughing now. The idea that any collection of 4-5 million people can all be "warriors" sounds pretty funny to modern people. Yet this idea that the Scots were naturally warlike was widely believed in 1914. It was a myth of course but like most myths it contained a few grains of truth.

Grain of Truth 1



Until the 19th century, Scotland had always been a poor country with strong trading links with Europe. There was a tradition of young Scots men seeking their fortune in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and even Russia. Military service was part of that tradition, especially during the religious wars in Europe in the 17th century. This print shows Scots soldiers who fought in the attack on Stettin in the army of the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus.

Grain of Truth 2



For centuries Scottish Highlanders had belonged to clan groups. Cattle stealing and fighting over clan territory was part of this until the battle of Culodden and the defeat of "Bonnie Prince Charlie". Laws passed such as the disarming Act were then passed by the UK government. They made the carrying of weapons (including bagpipes) illegal. Emigration from the Highlands then finished off the clan "system".

From the 1750s on, Highland Regiments had been formed to fight in the wars in North America against the French. The British Army General, James Wolfe famously commented ...

"They are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and it is
no great mischief if they fall."

Many more Highland and Lowland regiments were founded during the war of American independence and then against the French revolution and Napoleon. Recruitment into the Army was always needed to fight the Crimean war against Russia in 1856 and the wars of Empire in the late 19th century. Poverty was a great recruiter of both Highland and Lowland Scots. Paintings such as the one below helped to create the myth of the warrior race and were useful aids to recruitment also.

However, the myth WAS a myth. In the 19th century, Scottish regiments struggled to recruit sufficient men from the Highlands or the Lowlands. Often, they had to make up the numbers by recruiting from England and Ireland. The First World War was to change that.

The Charge of the Scots Greys at the Battle of Waterloo 1815.



Why was the "Warrior Myth" so powerful in 1914?


There were three major reasons for this ...



Hollywood actor Liam Neeson as "Rob Roy". The warrior myth still sells movie tickets!

1. Blame Sir Walter Scott! His historical novels such as "Waverley", "Rob Roy" and his poems "The Lay of the Last Minstrel" were huge blockbusters in the early 19th century. They created a massive world wide interest in Scotland and a tourist boom which has lasted to this day! Some historians have called Scott, "the man who invented Scotland". Composers like Mendelssohn wrote symphonies which were inspired by visits to Scotland and even Queen Victoria became obsessed after her husband Prince Albert bought a Highland home at Balmoral.

2. By 1914, Scotland had become an urban and industrial society. Most people had boring jobs (if they had jobs at all) in offices, factories etc. The idea that an office worker or shipyard labourer was part of a "warrior race" was bound to be flattering and popular. Historians have called this development "the invention of tradition."

3. Emigration from Scotland had a huge impact on Scottish culture at home. Scots emigrants in Canada, the USA, Australia etc were nostalgic for the "old country". This was often expressed by starting Caledonian Clubs and dressing in Highland dress. Most of these emigrants were lowland Scots but dressing up as Highlanders was much more romantic and impressive to the people they lived among in their new countries.

Watch this clip from the BBC series "A History of Scotland".

">

Background: Scottish Politics in 1914

Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. MP for Stirling and Prime Minister after the Liberal victory in 1906. He symbolised Liberal dominance in Scottish politics. He died in 1908 after leading the Liberal Party to its greatest ever election victory.

The Liberals dominated Scottish politics before WW1. Their appeal was based on moral issues such as Temperance, land reform and Free Trade (which placed them in opposition to the great landowners) and changes in the UK Constitution such as Home Rule for Ireland.

1910 Election showed Liberal dominance: Libs 57 Cons 10 Lab 3.

Why the Liberals?

Seemed to stand up for middle classes and workers against aristocracy and big businessmen against the landowners.
After 1906, New Liberalism led to minimum wages pensions and sickness and unemployment benefits.

Why vote Liberal?

After 1882 Reform Act, new voters in the working classes voted for them.
There was no Labour Party till 1900.
The Young Scots were an energetic group in the party that took the message through leaflets to peoples’ homes and onto the streets.
In 1910 this young Scot group had 2500 members, nearly as big as the entire Independent Labour Party.

Conservative and Unionist Party.

Associated with big landowners and landlords who profited from huge rents to town dwellers.
Cons wanted to protect British wheat farming by putting up trade barriers to foreign competition. This would lead to higher food prices.
Scotland needed foreign trade and did not want trade barriers.

The Labour Party

James Keir Hardie was the first to stand as an Independent Labour Candidate in 1884. He lost.
He believed the Liberals would never do enough for workers.
In 1888 the Scottish Labour Party was created.
It campaigned for health and safety in mines, an eight hour working day, votes for women and home rule for Scotland.
In 1900 this party and other groups got together to create the Labour Party.
Before 1914 the Labour Party was very small in Scotland and had little impact. Yet ten years later it all but replaced the Liberals in Scotland as the main party for Scots.