Talk:Aylmer Hunter-Weston

Untitled
The writer of this article was probably a relative, given that it fails to mention that he was one of the most complacent officers possibly ever recorded. He was in command of the invading force on beach Y in the Dardanelles Campaign, which met with no opposition. Yet not only did the force not advance in what was a desperately needed success, the force failed even to dig in, leaving their position entirely unfortified. By the third day, despite being able to advance entirely unhindered unlike at V and W beaches where there were heavy British casualties, the advance had broken down due to "issues of morale". There is an article on this very site that reinforces all of that, under Battle of Gallipoli. This is just one of the many many extraordinarily stupid blunders Hunter-Weston made in what was, let us not forget, a horrendous loss of life and a shameful military defeat. 21,255 British troops dead. I do not want to see this...person...be remembered for something he never was. His middle name definitely isnt Hunter, its Complacency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.76.233 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with any reactionary POV, his record is verifiably damning. I've made some referenced edits and citations as to criticisms about his military performance. 124.169.237.208 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup & Balance
Clearly this man was, on a personal level, a bit of a buffoon - as the nickname "Hunter-Bunter" suggests. He also had the misfortune to take part in the Gallipoli campaign which looms large in the Australian demonology of the war, even though he didn't personally command the Australians - a campaign from the planning and execution of which nobody on the Allied side emerges with much credit until they conducted a skilful withdrawal.

That said, I think one has to be careful not to damn him for things which weren't entirely his fault. He seems to have been a good brigade commander in 1914. The Helles Landings were a shambles but then the Allies had never conducted an operation like that in living memory (and in WW2 the Allies would never have mounted an invasion of that type without specialist landing craft or out of air cover range - options obviously not open to Ian Hamilton, although in 1917 the British did toy with the idea of a landing of that type on the Belgian coast), and once the boats were launched it was up to junior officers to lead the fight ashore - it's easy to make hindsight criticisms of how H-W should have moved a battalion from this bridgehead to that, but it wouldn't have made that much difference and in the end the Allies did get ashore and establish a bridgehead across the tip of Cape Helles. The battles of Krithia weren't exactly masterpieces either but given the lack of artillery it's hard to see how anyone else would have done that much better - as so often in WW1 it's easy to forget that the generals also had a job to do and not attacking wasn't an option, no matter how their political bosses tried to shift blame later. At the Somme he was clearly wrong to want to detonate the mine early, but the high casualties suffered by VIII Corps were largely caused by the decision to attack over too wide an area, thus spreading the artillery cover too thin - a decision taken well above his pay grade.

These are of course my personal opinions so don't belong in the article, but you can see what I'm driving at. Just because men died under his command doesn't in itself prove that he was "incompetent" or "a butcher". I think this is what Gordon Corrigan means when he calls his handling of Gallipoli "competent", although I think Corrigan exaggerates - H-W just didn't do any worse than anyone other than a really outstanding general would have done at that stage in the war. After 1916 he wasn't really up to the higher standards of professionalism demanded, and was busy as an MP, so Haig sidelined him.

Robin Prior from whom I quote quite a bit is not a pop historian like Carlyon, but a highly-regarded academic (Australian, incidentally) student of the war. No hagiographer of British generalship but an expert on the evolution of artillery tactics during the war, and well worth reading for the serious student.

I removed some uncited rubbish about his "utter disregard for the welfare of his men" as I don't see any reason to doubt that he took the same paternal interest in his men's welfare that any British officer is expected to display, in any era. He just had the misfortune to have to command them in battles in which a lot of them got killed. Paulturtle (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Butcher of Helles
Have removed this nickname, as it isn't mentioned in any up-to-date book. I dare say it's an invention from years after the event when demonology was running amok. Feel free to add back in if a cite can be found.Paulturtle (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've found and added a contemporary description of Hunter-Weston in July 1915 as a "butcher", although I've no idea how widespread this was. I still suspect "Butcher of Helles" was a term of abuse, presumably amongst Australians, long after the event.Paulturtle (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aylmer Hunter-Weston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515145029/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)