Slow Horses and Fast Women

[phil andrade]

Sir John French had a weakness for the Ladies and was - I suspect - a gambler.

The contrast with Haig is remarkable.

The NAM conducted a poll to elect Britain's greatest general. Haig was a contender, and was shortlisted. Wellington and Slim tied as winners.

I wonder if Haig's controlled demeanour worked against his popular appeal in today's personality orientated culture.

Compared with the dazzling personalites of some commanders, he seems as dull as ditchwater.

The attributes of High Command are not served by seeking to win popularity, and Haig was consciously disdainful of that. although he was skillful at turning his political and social advantage to good account.

I voted for Haig.

I should have voted for Malborough.

Phil (PJA)

[Beau Geste]

Sir John French had a weakness for the Ladies and was - I suspect - a gambler.

I wonder if Haig's controlled demeanour worked against his popular appeal in today's personality orientated culture.

Phil (PJA)

What judgement criteria was used Phil ?

Harry

[truthergw]

A popular poll over a few weeks, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Field Marshall Haig. The format was then changed so that a couple of live speakers could decide which of the contenders was ' greatest general'. The criteria used were the opinions of the couple of speakers who could be persuaded to turn out on the day for the stupidest attempt at dumbing down attempted by the NAM this decade. How anyone could hope to usefully rank great commanders over the whole of military history is beyond me. It is on a par with the comparisons drawn between D-Day at Normandy and some battle in the Great War. The only bright spot was that several old and valued friends appeared on line to air their views. Gratifying to see them alive and well and still as firmly in the rut as ever.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I wonder if Haig's controlled demeanour worked against his popular appeal in today's personality orientated culture.

Compared with the dazzling personalites of some commanders, he seems as dull as ditchwater.

You basically answer your own question when you note that: "The attributes of High Command are not served by seeking to win popularity, and Haig was consciously disdainful of that." Otherwise the points you raise are representative of peculiarly modern obsessions - it is not enough today in the opinion of many for an individual to feel compassion or sorrow, they must advertise the fact and wear it like a badge.

Seeking to judge historical figures by such modern mores and sensibilities, which not even everyone today subscribes to, is an exercise in futility. It was this kind of thing which drove John Bourne to note satirically that Haig's "best bet is probably to come back from the dead, appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, explain how he was abused as a child, admit to being gay and - above all - cry for the men he 'killed'." In personality Haig was a Presbyterian Scot of his generation, and the quintessential professional soldier. Public self-advertisement and emoting was not part of his makeup.

As I've shown in diary and letter quotes on a recent thread elsewhere on the forum, Haig would on occassion lower the mask of command to those allowed close to him to reveal the innermost feelings which he otherwise had to keep at arms length in order to continue to operate effectively under the burden of supreme command. To give another example of this, Marshal of the RAF Hugh Trenchard recalled that "Douglas Haig once told me it was the greatest strain of any man always to be planning how others were to get killed." Trenchard was someone Haig trusted, and whom he did not speak to to solicit sympathy or gain self-aggrandisement. The idea that Haig might unburden himself to a member of the press in order to achieve such aims is inconceivable to anyone with any understanding of the man's character. Haig was the first great Commander-in-Chief of a British army to operate in the modern style of command which more resembled (as it still does today, though on a far smaller scale than in '14 -'18) the methods of the CEO of a huge multinational corporation than as one of the 'dazzling personalities' of the battlefields of centuries past. And forget the media-hyped Montgomery of the Second World War - he never operated at anywhere near Haig's level of responsibility.

George

[phil andrade]

And forget the media-hyped Montgomery of the Second World War - he never operated at anywhere near Haig's level of responsibility.

George

Agreed, wholeheartedly. And, more to the point, Monty was such an abrasive squirt that he fell out with virtually everybody, including Freddie de Guigand, and, eventually, his own son. His personal manner was so difficult that he might have been afflicted with some form of autism. Bill Slim, however, does exemplify the kind of commander who achieved popularity without compromising his role. His personal appeal to the British and Indian soldiers was profound and without condescenscion. I would love to read similar tributes to Haig, but I suspect that he realised he could not attain that characteristic and , wisely, did not aspire to do so. To his credit, he retained his composure under the terrible provocation of DLG's conduct ( misconduct).

His father was an alcoholic, and this might have impinged on him. I'm thinking here of Robert E. Lee's determination to deal with the demons of his father's - "Light Horse Harry" - notorious gambling and womanising reputation. Both Lee and Haig upheld the most rigorous discipline and control in matters emotional : neither man was a "dry lunch", though...each was appreciative of good wine, without indulging in excess. Haig was disdainful of tee totalers, and knew how to deploy brandy to effect with guests : anecdotes about Joffre and Asquith come to mind. Both men were sustained by their religious faith. Lee, however, won the adoration of his men to a degree that I believe is unique in military annals.

I browsed through Walter Reid's biography of Haig today, looking for anecdotes about Haig's relationship with French. Almost on cue, I encountered a passage describing a visit he made to the French household, in the pre war years when he had rescued French from bankruptcy after an unwise investment...here I must apologise if I allude unfairly to what I supposed was gambling. Apparently, French's daughter, Essex , commented that Haig was "Desperately dull" ! A bit blunt, but then what would you expect from an Essex Girl ?

Rather than disparage Haig for this lack of sparkle, I'm almost inclined to increase my admiration...his task was all the more difficult, his achievement somehow enhanced.

Phil (PJA)

[jacksdad]

I think Haig will polarise people for another hundred years and more. just as he polarised the people and his contemporaries of the day.

he was good at what he did well - resolute and dependable and he was bad at what he did not do well.

Haig appeared on the scene, when the public and press and personallity politics were making his like a thing of the past. It would be fear to say no general today would have survived in his position after an event like the Somme or Passchendaele.

he had a job few men would want in reality and lets face it he out lasted the opposition.

edit- deleted second sentence of second para. don't agree with my own thoughts anymore.

[George Armstrong Custer]

he was at times brilliantly stupid repeating the same mistakes again and again for years on end and opposing new thoughts and ways of dealing with the problems faced by all armies on in the war dealing with a mechananised war that the old school of thought was just not able to adapt to well.

Care to elaborate on these assertions with some examples, Roger?

George

[phil andrade]

The last thing I wanted to do was start another Haig shooting match.

What really intrigues me is the astonishing lack of personality anecdote.

In this regard Haig stands alone : when people think of Nelson, Wellington, Kitchener, Patton, Monty, Slim - and others, be they nineteenth or twentieth century figures - there is usually a powerful association of personality and conduct....vignettes in the popular folklore, sayings and actions which we attribute to them. More, indeed, than the actual achievements on the field. And Haig's achievement is unique, too, both in terms of its scale and the sterness of the ordeal. Why, then, is there so little about his personality ? How far might we attribute this to the nature of the role he played in managing the most anonymous of all wars ?

Does the same apply to Joffre, Foch, Petain, Falkenhayn etc ? Perhaps macro management in this war required the faceless man.

But that pithy remark of the Essex Girl, that he was "desperately dull", must be countenanced.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

The last thing I wanted to do was start another Haig shooting match.

What really intrigues me is the astonishing lack of personality anecdote.

In this regard Haig stands alone : when people think of Nelson, Wellington, Kitchener, Patton, Monty, Slim - and others, be they nineteenth or twentieth century figures - there is usually a powerful association of personality and conduct....vignettes in the popular folklore, sayings and actions which we attribute to them. More, indeed, than the actual achievements on the field. And Haig's achievement is unique, too, both in terms of its scale and the sterness of the ordeal. Why, then, is there so little about his personality ? How far might we attribute this to the nature of the role he played in managing the most anonymous of all wars ?

Does the same apply to Joffre, Foch, Petain, Falkenhayn etc ? Perhaps macro management in this war required the faceless man.

But that pithy remark of the Essex Girl, that he was "desperately dull", must be countenanced.

Phil (PJA)

There are three books that I personally have read which deal with Haig, the man. One by his widow, one by his soldier servant, later his valet and general factotum and one by his personal chaplain. Can you name me another commanding general with this amount of personal exposure? In addition to these books there is the first edited selection of his papers by Blake which is entitled, " Private Papers of Douglas Haig". All of that in conjunction with his diaries leave little to be revealed. What I find desperately dull are the people who prefer the well worn cliches of the tongue tied, inarticulate butcher to the facts staring them in the face.

[SWorrall]

he was at times brilliantly stupid repeating the same mistakes again and again for years on end and at times opposing new thoughts and ways of dealing with the problems faced by all armies on in the war dealing with a mechananised war that the old school of thought was just not able to adapt to well. both sides generals did this.

Haig appeared on the scene, when the public and press and personallity politics were making his like a thing of the past. It would be fear to say no general today would have survived in his position after an event like the Somme or Passchendaele.

Much of what happened to the BEF was at the behest of the French, until the Nivelle Offensive wrecked their moral authority to largely decide where and when the BEF would fight. It was only from Messines onwards that Haig had the latitude for the BEF to decide on it's own operations.

Neither Haig nor FM French wanted to fight at Loos. Kitchener forced them to, in the name of supporting the French army. He even ordered them to accept heavy casualties.

The Somme was Joffre's conception, agreed upon shortly after Haig became the head of the BEF, whilst his authority was yet to be firmly established with the French. There was also the consideration of taking some weight off the French as they fought at Verdun.

Arras was initially successful, but was prolonged because of Nivelle's late start and then failure, and turned into a sanguine episode as a result.

Messines was a great success.

3rd Ypres was put into the hands of the wrong man initially, its start was delayed too long, then it was prolonged when even Plumer and Gough wanted it called off. That was Haig's biggest tactical mistake. There was also a need to divert German attention from discovering the French mutinies and draw their reserves in during the early part of the campaign.

The failure of 5th Army in March 1918 was largely down to 1) having just expanded its front and being too thinly stretched, and 2) lack of manpower to convert the front for defence in depth. Both down to political decisions over which Haig had no control.

In the summer and autumn of 1918 he was the promoter of the All-Arms Offensive tactics developed by Monash and Currie, which won the war. He was also the only one in either political or military high command on any side to recognise the opportunity to win the war in 1918.

Mechanised war only arrived in September 1916. There was nothing in the history of any army upon which to base tactics for tank operations. Again, he encouraged the deployment and trusted in others to work on developing those tactics.

No army would nowadays be committed to an operation like Somme or 3rd Ypres. The entire modern British Army is roughly comparable to the size of the active divisions of 4th Army on 1st July 1916. So the opportunity for a General to have to fight that kind of battle will not exist.

The level of innovation over which Haig presided was unprecedented at the time in warfare. This is not to claim that he was personally responsible for this, but he encouraged it and put the force of his office behind it. One example whree he was personally responsible for a major innovation was bringing in civilians like Geddes to re-organise the BEF logisitics. that was a masterstroke undertaken against the opposition of the officer corps, who thought they had nothing to learn from civilians.

You also put out the UK-centric attitude. After Somme the Germans retired to the Hindenburg Line partly because they feared another battle on the scale of the Somme. Hentig's well-known comment "The Somme was the muddy grave of the German field army".

After Broodseinde (October 4th 1917) the German commander opined "Two more such attacks and we are finished". They were saved from having to face that by the weather breaking.

Lloyd George would have loved to get rid of Haig and had a fair old go at it. But repeated tours by his agents to identify a suitable replacement all failed to do so. Haig was, for all his faults, simply the best man available for the job.

In short your statement does not bear comparison to the facts, is too narrow and is trotting out a line from 50 years ago, which has been largely discredited by modern critical academic study.

Simon.

[George Armstrong Custer]

As Tom says, it's less a problem with Haig's personality than it is of those who will not avail themselves of the readily available sources. This is nothing new, of course. At the outbreak of war in 1914, at the age of 48, the novelist W B Maxwell had joined the Royal Fusiliers as a lieutenant, and served on the Western Front between July 1915 and the end of 1917, when he was sent home on health grounds and was discharged early in 1918. In his autobiography, Time Gathered, published just before his death in 1938, Maxwell wrote as follows:

"I remember none of that carping criticism of all generals and staff officers that is often attributed to the Army in France. We believed firmly in Haig. We trusted him absolutely. We followed him blindly. I want to make this point with some strength, because in war books such a different story of the universal attitude to Sir Douglas has often been given. In a large number of books subsequently written, both of fiction and history, the picture shown to me is quite unrecognisable. Young men fighting their terrors with alcohol - young men hysterically inveighing against the old men who have hunted and trapped them into occupying their present hideous position - young men going to an unwilling death raving and cursing! And nowhere a hint of nobility or altruism."

Charles Carrington, a man with extensive frontline experience in the trenches of the Western Front, in his memoir Soldier From The Wars Returning, echoes Maxwell's view of the misrepresentation of how Haig had actually been perceived by his contemporaries:

"I wish to place it on record that never once during the war did I hear such criticisms of Sir Douglas Haig as now are current when his name is mentioned. [....] He was trusted, and that put an end to discussion. A fine sight he was, as I saw him once near his advanced headquarters at Beauquesne, with a trooper riding in front bearing his Union flag, a group of red-tabbed staff officers at a decent interval, and an escort of lancers with fluttering pennons. I do not think he enjoyed pomp - a simple, thoughtful man."

And Maxwell's wider points about the way the ordinary soldier's experience was rendered unrecognisable in much of the glut of war literature which appeared at the end of the 1920's - early 1930's is also picked up upon by Sidney Rogerson, another frontline veteran, in his 1933 memoir Twelve Days On The Somme:

"Recently there has been the war of the Sewers, in which no one ever laughed, those who were not melancholy mad were alcoholically hysterical, and most of the action took place in or near the crude latrines of the period. The simple soldier smiled as he read about himself in the heroics of the war scribes. The bemused survivor is slightly irritated to find his experiences exploited by marrow-freezing agents of peace for all time. Propaganda, during the war, if it failed to reach the fighting man, found its mark at home; England had no lack of civilian warriors who became increasingly bloodthirsty in proportion as the fighting man's appetite for battle grew feebler with every leave. But this post-war propaganda, piling corpse upon corpse, heaping horror on futility, seems bound to fail from every point of view. In its distortion, the soldier looks in vain for the scenes he knew."

The point I'm making is that correctives such as Maxwell, Carrington, and Rogerson have always been available for those who care to look. As Tom has noted in his post, the literature giving first hand insights into Haig the man have also long been available for those interested to look at them. Over and above this, Haig's handwritten daily wartime diaries and daily letters to his wife are available for public consultation. Only a fraction of these have been published in the editions edited by Robert Blake and, more recently, Sheffield & Bourne. Yet anyone who spends time immersed in these - as I'm sure my colleague Simon Justice will confirm - comes away with a great feel for what Haig was like as a person. That personality is a fully rounded human being, with all the foibles of character and humour which that implies. My personal feeling is that Haig has been ill-served by his biographers to date in imparting this. Even Terraine, the champion who began the fight back against the unsustainable 'donkeys' school which was begun and sustained for decades by Liddell Hart and a small circle of overly influential acolytes, gave us a two-dimensional portrait of Haig the man. As Terraine put it, "[Haig's] private life was private indeed." Gerard De Groot echoed this view that the private side of Haig is unknowable. Well, as my own work will show, there is a vast amount of untapped material which gives us illuminating insights into Haig's private life. From this he does emerge as a fully rounded human being. Why is this important? Well, in the absence of publication of such evidence, the two dimensional caricatures of Haig as a cold, unfeeling, religious zealot with few cultural interests have been seen as valid interpretations which have been extrapolated to supposedly 'explain' aspects of how he did his job as C-in-C of the BEF.

The impression of Haig as 'desperately dull' which PJA mentions French's daughter Essex forming is worth a little scrutiny. The first point to note is that Essex French was twelve years old at the time she formed this opinion of Haig. The quote used by Walter Reid is sourced to Richard Holmes' biography of French. This in turn gives its source for a whole paragraph which, inter alia, contains the Essex - Haig episode, as a 1977 interview with Essex, and the Life of her father Sir John French which was written in 1931 by her brother Gerald French. The passages about Haig being desperately dull and saying 'Daphne, poor dog' to Essex's pet dog quoted by Holmes and subsequently Reid, come verbatim from Gerald French's observations in his Life of his father. Gerald French spent the years to his death in 1970 attempting to restore his father's reputation through lawsuits, books and letters to the press. Haig was seen by Gerald as the man who had usurped his father's position as C-in-C of the BEF in December 1915. Are we then to base our understanding of Haig's personality and ability to converse upon the impressions of a 12 year old girl on a middle-aged colleague of her father's, as related by her less than impartial brother? Or are we to look to the wealth of primary material from Haig, his family, and professional associates already mentioned by myself and Tom, to which can be added the astute contemporary observations of, inter alios, men like F S Oliver and Lord Esher, as well as those of military men like John 'Tavish' Davidson?

Anyone who thinks that Haig's self-control in discharging his duties as C-in-C of the BEF, and his naturally calm demeanour equates to him being unimaginative or 'dull as ditchwater' simply hasn't read widely enough. But then, as men like Carrington, Maxwell and Rogerson could tell you, that was the basis of a lot of misconceptions about the Great War. The Aussie's have dubbed these the Zombie Myths - the myths that refuse to die due to the continual and unthinking regurgitation of them in the mass media.

George

[George Armstrong Custer]

I think I might just quote that highly accurate, politically incorrect and amusing view for my WFA presentation on Arras this month.

If you do use the 'Oprah Winfrey' piece and want to cite the source, it comes from 'Haig and the Historians' (p.9), by John M. Bourne, in Haig - A Reappraisal 70 Years On, edited by Brian Bond and Nigel Cave, Leo Cooper, Barnsley, 1999.

George

[squirrel]

Not many C in C's would stop their Staff Car to speak to a hungry lone soldier finding his way back to his unit and give him the food left over from their lunch hamper. Then recognise him again at a later date....

Not many C in C's would have told a war artist doing a portrait of him to go and paint the men as they were the ones fighting and dying. Nor, when the GHQ building was shaken by the explosion of a nearby ammunition dump, tell the same artist that it was because the Germans knew that the artist was there.

Personality? Certainly, when the occasion required or allowed it to be shown. But his aim was to be single minded in bringing the war to a successful conclusion not to win prizes for or to court poularity. A product of his time and upbringing and cannot be judged by 21st century standards. As George and others have said, plenty of resourses to find out about the man and the soldier if you are prepared to look for them.

[keithmroberts]

Can we keep to the subject please - and without provocative comments. A post has been removed.

Thank you

Keith

[jon_armstrong]

The impression of Haig as 'desperately dull' which PJA mentions French's daughter Essex forming is worth a little scrutiny. The first point to note is that Essex French was twelve years old at the time she formed this opinion of Haig.

Surely 12 year old girls think that everyone over the age of about 20 is desperately dull?

[inkerman]

I think Haig will polarise people for another hundred years and more. just as he polarised the people and his contemporaries of the day.

he was good at what he did well - resolute and dependable and he was bad at what he did not do well. he was at times brilliantly stupid repeating the same mistakes again and again for years on end and at times opposing new thoughts and ways of dealing with the problems faced by all armies on in the war dealing with a mechananised war that the old school of thought was just not able to adapt to well. both sides generals did this.

Haig appeared on the scene, when the public and press and personallity politics were making his like a thing of the past. It would be fear to say no general today would have survived in his position after an event like the Somme or Passchendaele.

he had a job few men would want in reality and lets face it he out lasted the opposition.

I do think it is sad that Haig gets such abuse; compare his contemporaries track records. Did he do better than French, Moltke, Nivelle, Falkenheyn or Ludendorf? FM Slim wrote that a General's job is to win battles, and Haig did the job that he was given. The Allies did win the war, and the BEF and Empire forces did not suffer a 'collective indiscipline' or worse.

[SWorrall]

Here's another quote from John Bourne; 'Britain and the Great War: 1914 - 1918'. Chapter 7, final paragraph. Sums it up very well, I think.

"Generalship is the most arduous and exacting of all human activities. It is a zero-sum game: win or lose. There is no in-between. What is not a victory is defeat. And military defeat in the C20th has been followed not only by national humiliation but also by occupation, oppression and genocide. Douglas Haig fulfilled the most important criterion of generalship. He won. The scale of his victories was the greatest in British military history. His countrymen have never forgiven him." (my bold-type)

Great exposition in your 15:37 post by the way GAC.

Simon.

[AlanCurragh]

Two further posts removed - if any member has an issue with the posts made above, they should argue their point and not post comments designed to provoke

[phil andrade]

There are three books that I personally have read which deal with Haig, the man. One by his widow.

Now that would be interesting !

I would like to get hold of that.

The fact that Haig's widow wrote a book suggests that she, too, might have felt that there had been insufficient hisrtorical attention paid to the man himself.

He's so very much out of the limelight, especially when we reflect on the epic achievement of his command. Perhaps that accounts for my curiosity.

Edit : just casting my mind over depictions of Haig on the screen, I can think of only three ....John Mills in Oh, What a Lovely War ! ; a caricatured attempt by an Aussie trying to be a Pom Stuffed Shirt in that TV series ANZAC about 25 years ago; and Geoffrey Palmer's few seconds of glory in Blackadder. Not much, is it ? Oh ! I forgot ! There was another ghastly portrayal in a TV series about Lloyd George starring Philip Maddoc (?) about thirty yeears ago.

Phil (PJA)

[SWorrall]

Now that would be interesting !

I would like to get hold of that.

The fact that Haig's widow wrote a book suggests that she, too, might have felt that there had been insufficient hisrtorical attention paid to the man himself.

Look for it second-hand.

It's called 'The man I knew'. Authored either by Dorothy Haig, Dorothy Maud Haig, Countess Haig or Countess Dorothy Haig.

Be prepared to spend between £20 - £60 plus postage.

His widow spent what remained of her life trying to ensure the maintenance of his good reputation.

Gary Mead, in his 'The good soldier: The biography of Douglas Haig' details in Ch. 14 the means by which Lady Haig came to write her volume. Duff Cooper had been selected to write an authorised version. Lady Haig decided to have a go herself at the same time, feeling that Cooper could not do the job to her satisfaction (although she was a Trustee of her husband's estate and responsible for signing Cooper up to the task). She broke contracts settled for Cooper's version, which resulted in her settling out of court after fabricating evidence to make a case that Cooper had broken his agreement. A sad and sorry tale.

Simon.

[centurion]

A great number of Victorian rakes no doubt owed both their success and survival to slow women and fast horses.

Wellington when ordered to Portugal to take command acquired a Portuguese courtesan* to accompany him on the voyage so that he would have a command of the language when he arrived. Such dedication to duty

*Incidentally the only woman known to have slept with both Napoleon and Wellington is on record as stating that Wellington was better in bed - make of this what you like.

[jacksdad]

Jingos

I have just logged back in and read through the comments lengthy and short. I must be brilliantly stupid!

I like #15 and Centurion - well your a legend in your own time. well said. all of us missed the whole point of the title

No one seems really happy that I have dared suggest that Haig is human.

It's a bit like the cult of Mao where you dare not mention the poor bloke was a human. I think Haig was human and had to learn on the job – in doing so he made mistakes, and at times repeatedly. – many posts have mentioned the pressure and problems he had to deal with. That is an environment for good men to make bad mistakes, its human.

Did he make mistakes - yes

Did he oppose new ideas - yes

Did he have moments of stupidity and brilliance – yes

The poor bloke had to fight the Germans and the politicians…

I see some have jumped on the one portion of my post and edited out (or simply blindly ignored) anything else that maybe is not as sensational, that's why its in the post.

Its there to flush out the same old dogmatic views that say "modern critical thought has moved on from this"....…(and I am not quoting anyone in particular in this thread here, please do not be offended) and then show how critical the line of thought is by only quoting line after line of lengthy and at times obscure quotes which only dogmatically agree with them.

i am nether pro or anti Haig. though i feel the warm hands of many trying to get me into one of those nice neat pigeon hole as i write...

Would I vote for Haig – nope

I'd Vote for Major General Sir Andrew Russell because he lead a little tin pot army from the utter most ends of the earth and – well… to be honest I'm dogmatic about that because he's a Hawke's Bay lad like me.

Was Russell brilliantly stupid? Well he was just like Haig… same pressures same mistakes...the whole war was brilliantly stupid.

Someone recommend me a book to read on Haig?

[phil andrade]

*Incidentally the only woman known to have slept with both Napoleon and Wellington is on record as stating that Wellington was better in bed - make of this what you like.

Hard pounding !

Phil (PJA)

[George Armstrong Custer]

Someone recommend me a book to read on Haig?

What do you need a book for, Roger? You've just told we 'Jingos' how it is, without feeling the need to substantiate any of your fanciful opinions about Haig opposing new ideas, etc etc.

George

[jacksdad]

Hi George

'Jingos'' in NZ is a word that is used to exclaim surprise, it is not a noun. Maybe that is different in the UK.

You drop your beer 'Jingos' - its considered a joking self deflating exclamation.

i'd like to read a book that agrees with you. but if that is out of the question thats ok

i have read his diaries, not riveting, i have started the book by his wife abt 3 years ago and found it so one sided i gave up.

i have ordered in the book at the local library today - Haig an educated soldier by Terraine.

Roger