Why Haig Fought Third Battle of Ypres

Chronicle (Levin), 7 May 1949, Page 5

Why Haig Fought Third Battle of Ypres

Received Friday, 8,50 p.m. LONDON, May 6.' Captain B. H>. Liddell Hart's. ve- ' cenfe assertion in- the> Daily Telegraph that there is- no- contemporary • corrohoration- of the claim- made on behalf of the late Field Marshal Earl • Haig that it was necessary for the British armies to launch the Third Battle of Yyres in 1917, and particularly to eontinue with the attacks • upon the Passchendeale Ridge because the French Army was seriously pressed and' its morale. was showing signs of eracking, is challenged: by Marshal- of the Royal A-ir Force Lord Trenchard and Major-General Sir John Davidson in a joint- letter to the Daily Telegraph to-day. Lord Trenchard at the time of the Batfle of Ypres was commanding the .Royal Flying Corps and General Davidson was Director of Military Operatiens under Haig. The joint letter states: "We are writing to point out that the serioua nature and extent of the -morale collapse in the centre of the French Army was virtually unknown to the British Army and nation in 1917 and even for long afterwards." '•'Earl Haig was kept fully * acquainted with all the circumstances and with the progress of these disorders at the time of their occurrence, and he recognised the vital importance of complete secrecy. Information had heen given to him under the seal of secrecy by the French High Command. He disclosed nothmg until after the war, and even then he said as little as possihle. "The undersigned were two of the very few who from the nature of their appointments were kept secret-\ ly informed. We are, therefore, in a position to state the facts — contemporary ignorance of these facts is not surprising. The necessity for continuing the operation to deflect German at.tention from the French front while Marshal Petain was endeavouring to restore French morale is obvious. We are satisfied that the official British War History gives a substantially true and fair revieW of the operations in question,"