Douglas Haig - Architect of victory

[TonyJoe]

Has anyone read this and how good is it? What are the best books on Haig?

[Jonathan Saunders]

I've read parts of it and was pretty disappointed.

In a recent conversation general consesus was that de Groot's biography was best but I think this is out of print.

[armourersergeant]

not all academics rate this book highly as far as i understand it

Arm

[David Seymour]

John Terraine, Haig - The Educated Soldier should be on your list.

David

[Bernard_Lewis]

Agreed. Terraine's book is still well worth a look.

Bernard

[armourersergeant]

Terraine's book is good, it was once ground breaking, however I think you need to temper it with something less 'worshiping'. It was written, IMO, to regain his reputation and thus may go a little far in places.

regards

Arm

Ps not read De Groot but it does seem to get a good report.

[AndyHollinger]

This may be somewhat sacreligious (coming from a book person) but the forum here has TONs of material on Haig and while it is very episodic - meaning it has no narative - one can learn whatever one needs to about the Field Marshall right here.

[PhilB]

I`m put off by the title. It tells exactly where the author`s going and what his conclusion is. It`s rather like a detective novel called "The Butler Did It". At least the title "The Educated Soldier" leaves a few options open, even if he wasn`t particularly educated. Or should I not judge a book by its cover? Phil B

PS Why did Terraine call him the educated soldier? He`s given Haig a real boost by giving the impression that he was academically gifted.

[Bernard_Lewis]

Very simply - I think he was saying that Haig was a more professional officer than had previously been the case - he studied military history and thought about the principles. A departure from the old pattern of one son for the army, another for the church etc. that well to do families seemed to unconsciously follow. Maybe to them it was just a job; to Haig (love him or hate him) it was a profession and had to be studied and learned from.

Bernard

[Chris_Baker]

I have a copy of De Groot's book and although I have not read it for some years now have a distinct memory of it being less than brilliant. Can't recall why. I'll dig it out when I get a chance.

[Justin Moretti]

Terraine defines very clearly what he means by "educated". There is no doubt at least in my mind that Haig did his utmost to learn everything about warfare that was known or taught at the time. If he learned erroneous things and took them to heart, he was not alone. If he failed to adapt as quickly as some to the changing situation, he was not alone in that either. He definitely made mistakes. But he didn't simply 'not try'.

I suppose one of the great 'what-ifs' of history is: what would Haig have done in Ludendorff's position in March 1918? Turn after British III Army after V Army had broken and split it from the French? Or would he have succumbed to the lure of secondary gains the way Ludendorff did? Haig's bullheaded, single-minded obstinacy may not have been a weakness after all...

EKG Sixsmith also writes a reasonably positive, if brief, biography of Haig. I know Wollongong Library has a copy, and Aussie university-going members further afield than, say, Sydney may be able to get it on inter-library loan.

[PhilB]

But, Justin, it gives the impression not just that Haig was particularly (self) educated but that the other generals were not educated. Or self educated, as it now appears. Are we to assume that, compared with Haig, the other generals Allenby, Byng, Plumer etc didn`t bother with that military stuff? Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

Phil, with respect, what makes you say that Haig was not academically gifted? Is this comment based on something written by someone else? I don't know if Haig was or was not. Assuming he was not (however one might define this), just for the sake of argument, then this does not mean Haig was not capable of studying or becoming more educated about military issues. Have you ever seen or read his dissertations, or the books and other material that he wrote before the war? Or are your comments based on secondary sources?

As for the other generals, it is very difficult to know the extent to which they analysed material published by German and French sources for example. Does this mean they did not? No, it just means that it is more difficult to assess. Some generals certainly studied German military doctrine and development very carefully. General Maurice is one example that comes immediately to mind. To say that Haig was 'educated' according to Terraine's definition does not mean that other generals were 'not educated'.

Please don't get me wrong. It is your perogative to not read a book because of the title. You are entitled to opine as to Haig's educational status. If, however, your opinions are based on secondary sources, I would strongly recommend checking out some of the primary material. Perhaps it is best not to judge a book by someone else's cover?

Robert

[PhilB]

Robert, I didn`t say that Haig necessarily wasn`t academically gifted. Terraine`s title gives (at least me!) the impression that he certainly was. His Oxford career gives no support though? Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 26 2006, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He`s given Haig a real boost by giving the impression that he was academically gifted.

Apologies, Phil. I misinterpreted the above comment as suggesting you thought Haig was not academically gifted. Rather than debate whether university careers do or don't support the notion of being academically gifted, I would suggest it is probably better to dissociate the concept from Terraine's definition of 'educated'. A good example why it is best not to prejudge a book's content by its title . I toyed with creating the opposites of the title of the book under discussion. 'Architect of Defeat' doesn't work at all. 'Not the Architect of Victory' might be more interesting? In any event, we have a ways to go before a more complete complete picture of Haig is available. No doubt this book will have some insights that need to considered alongside those already out there. I look forward to a more detailed review.

Robert

[PhilB]

Rather than debate whether university careers do or don't support the notion of being academically gifted, I would suggest it is probably better to dissociate the concept from Terraine's definition of 'educated'. Robert

Exactly Robert - Terraine`s definiton (though we don`t know what he actually meant) would seem to be different to the norm. However, it would be difficult to demonstrate academic gift without university success? Phil B

[Take on me]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 27 2006, 12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert, I didn`t say that Haig necessarily wasn`t academically gifted. Terraine`s title gives (at least me!) the impression that he certainly was. His Oxford career gives no support though? Phil B

In their Preface to DH's diaries Sheffield and Bourne write that he became ill while at Oxford and was unable to complete the year and therefore chose to go straight on to the army rather than retake the entire year.

Jon

[PhilB]

Don`t suppose they mentioned his results from the first two years? No exhibition or scholarship? Phil B

[Take on me]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 27 2006, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don`t suppose they mentioned his results from the first two years? No exhibition or scholarship? Phil B

Nothing on those I am afraid.

Jon

[squirrel]

I've seen a reference to John Terraine's description of Haigh as "the educated soldier" in a another book about Haigh somewhere.

IIRC, it refers more to his "education" as a soldier who studied his craft in depth and detail rather than any scholarly learning.

Also about a third of the way through A of V the book and enjoying it -certainly very readable.

[PhilB]

IIRC, it refers more to his "education" as a soldier who studied his craft in depth and detail rather than any scholarly learning.

One assumes it must be the case, but are we to assume that the other staff college men didn`t bother to pursue military studies? I can understand young officers being more interested in the social or sporting side, but surely nobody aspiring to high rank? Phil B

[squirrel]

Not entirely sure - it seems to me that the remarks were made about Haigh because he had no interests at all except the Army, except perhaps for riding, Polo and later, Golf and his wife and family of course. But the Army was always his first consideration.

I have read somewhere that he didn't think too highly of the abilities of most of his contemporaries who did what they had to do to pass sc but did not "study" their trade.

These remarks attributed to Haigh are remarkably similar to those expressed by a certain B L Mongomery in his own memoirs.

[PhilB]

One wonders if the attitude of "bad form to be studious" was prevalent in army officers for a lot longer than we suspect. It would certainly, I feel, be so among the aristocracy whose manners the professional officers probably reflected. I can`t say I recall many references by Haig himself to excessive study in the recent book of his pre war diaries? Phil B

[squirrel]

Have just penned a lengthy reply only to have it disappear in to the ether.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that in some units, old on the Army List, it is still not popular to be a swot and show dash & efficiency in getting things done unless you are in action.

That said, there is a reference in Prior & Wilson's Firepower to RHA & RFA Officers pre WW1 not being aware of what went on behind the swingle tree. They knew their horses but not a lot about gunnery apparently.

Haigh's time in Egypt , South Africa and India gave him plenty of examples of how things should and should not have been done.

Certainly, he was a very able Staff Officer and considered by some to have been the best in the Army.

His work with Haldane on the reorganisation of the Army, the TF and his work on training and manuals certainly meant that the BEF exisited and was able to make such a contribution to the early part of the war.

Also his work in India was in no small way responsible for the Indian Army being in a position where it could go to France and assist the BEF in late 1914 and before the TF and the new armies were ready.

[Greenwoodman]

Just completed "Architect of Victory" after about five months' reading. Not that its difficult to read, just that I find it difficult to find time to read, when I'm reading the forum on-line! Still it gave me the opportunity to digest it slowly. I think its a good book, not as good as Wiest's which I reviewed some time ago. But nevertheless its a balanced account. Reid does not hesititate to lambast Haig for his mistakes, but finds plenty to praise. No doubt as a nod towards the title, he lays emphasis on Haig being the only senior military man (or politician for that matter) to forecast the end of the war for autumn 1918. Everyone else was focussing on 1919. Well-researched with comprehensive end-notes.