# Currie as Field Marshal?



## AJFitzpatrick (26 Aug 2011)

Not Canadian Army Field Marshal ?
{nitpickers note below}








(yes I know that rank doesn't exist anymore nor has there ever been a Canadian Field Marshal or even if it ever theoretically existed .... Currie may have gotten it had WWI lasted 6 months longer)


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Currie may have gotten it had WWI lasted 6 months longer)



How?  He wasn't even a full General.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How?  He wasn't even a full General.


Indeed. He finished the war as a LGen and didn't become a Gen until after the war, and this seems to have been more of an atta-boy promotion (not to take anything away from his achievements, by all means)


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (29 Aug 2011)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Indeed. He finished the war as a LGen and didn't become a Gen until after the war, and this seems to have been more of an atta-boy promotion (not to take anything away from his achievements, by all means)



Well if Haig was replaced by Currie (as has been postulated by a few historians), Currie pretty much would have had to been promoted to Field Marshal because of the optics (Can't be replacing a Field Marshal with a mere General).  Perhaps 6 months is too short of a time frame ...


----------



## Danjanou (29 Aug 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Well if Haig was replaced by Currie (as has been postulated by a few historians), Currie pretty much would have had to been promoted to Field Marshal because of the optics (Can't be replacing a Field Marshal with a mere General).  Perhaps 6 months is too short of a time frame ...



As many of those same historians had suggested that Monash would have been made his Deputy with the rank of General so perhaps Field Marsshall Sir Arthur Currie was a possibility. It has a nice ring to it. 8)


----------



## Infanteer (30 Aug 2011)

Oh, you're serious.

I don't see how anyone could imply that Currie (a bankrupt Canadian) and Monash (a Jewish Australian) would have been promoted over the heads of any of the 5 Army Commanders to take the BEF.  Are there any actual diaries or transcripts of discussions about this, or is this just mental masturbation.


Edit:  grammar.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh, you're serious.
> 
> Is there any actual diaries or transcripts of discussions about this, _*or is this just mental masturbation.*_



Please.  The technical term is social science.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2011)

All we have, apparently, is a statement by Lloyd George to his biographer. We all should know what self-serving tripe can be found in memoirs and fawning biographies, and those of politicans (and generals) take second place to no one in that regard. I don't think it would have happened, especially as King George V and Haig were personal friends. There also is the relative lack of experience in high command of both Currie and Monash compared to Rawlinson, Byng, Gough and the rest.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh, you're serious.
> 
> I don't see how anyone could imply that Currie (a bankrupt Canadian) and Monash (a Jewish Australian) would have been promoted over the heads of any of the 5 Army Commanders to take the BEF.  Are there any actual diaries or transcripts of discussions about this, or is this just mental masturbation.
> 
> ...



Oh I know the Elite of the Old Country would have had a series of coronies ( which would have thinned out the possible opposition somewhat  8)) at the mere thought of Colonials in charge let alone Colonials with such baggage "dear god one of them was actually in trade!"

However as OS pointed out there are possible indications that Lloyd George may or may not have considered it (and I know the source is a step above wiki). Lloyd George like many political leaders didn't always see eye to eye with his military commanders,  and may have done it more to piss them off that for Currie's/Monash's talents. Hell stranger things have been know to happen.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

Whatever Lloyd George might have had in mind, General Byng was also a proven British commander and well connected with the Royal family as well, he would have been the logical choice to pick up the leadership of the Imperial forces if Byng had been deposed or displaced.

Now Byng knew the quality of the Canadians and their leaders, having been their Corps commander, so we can play all kinds of contrafactual games with this scenario. I would suspect Field Marshal Byng would keep his best instruments of destruction (the Canadian Corps and the ANZACs) together as formed units to crack open the German lines at the times and places of his choosing rather than promoting Currie and Monash above the other Army commanders. Most British planning prior to the arrival of the Americans and the German offensive of 1918 revolved around the idea of ending the war in 1919, and that was probably the best COA to make it happen under the circumstances.


----------

