Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Douglas Haig and the First World War


George Armstrong Custer

Recommended Posts

About a third of the way through this now - Loos and Haig's fulminations about French and his replacement. It would be wrong to call Harris deliberatelyhostile, but he is deeply questioning of Haig's achievement and abilities and marshals strong evidence for his views. Obviously I have yet to finish the book but it is, if you like, warts and all, and I think none the worse for it. I suppose it could be best described as a revisit - and rejoinder - to JT's book. Well worth reading - for revisionists laffinistas and clarkists alike. The research - much secondary but from recent books of good repute - is impressive, the writing good, readable and erudite, and the mapping just about adequate. Pics are US style - printed on reading page and and print quality paper, - they and are poor and muddy. But overall good value and a book which will expand the debate on Haig for the good I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of predominantly secondary sources is a bit of a concern to me in the sections I have so far read which (shock, horror) have been the Somme parts. The significant number of Prior and Wilson quotes might concern some (not me, of course, as I am totally 'unsound' on this issue :D ) . Some niggles with the indexing too. Otherwise, highly readable and some excellent insights to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only read about 85 pages so far but enjoying the read.

One slight niggle in the way some of it is phrased...........mostly when referring to people by name and repeating that name before and after a full stop. Why not use a comma and who?

The example I quote is from page 66:

".....about the 2nd Division commander, Major-General Charles Monro. Monro had been a good regimental officer......."

Just seems to interupt the flow somehow................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

g'day all,

I have just finished Gary Mead's book, 'The Good Soldier - The Biography of Douglas Haig. I think it would be hard to find a more balanced view. It bought Haig into very clear focus for me.

RDC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The significant number of Prior and Wilson quotes might concern some (not me, of course, as I am totally 'unsound' on this issue :D ) .
Said with a smile so I will refrain from raising said concerns :lol:

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Mead's book is highly thought of but it is a 'simple' biography - not a detailsed analysis of DHs war and command. Reading the two books in parallel, as I am, show just how limited Mead's analysis of this aspect of Haig was. In reality I think Mead adds very little that is really new to the topic. Harris is challenging and far more deeply rooted in Haig's war. Not criticism but the point comparing the two is like comparing oranges and lemons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of predominantly secondary sources is a bit of a concern to me in the sections I have so far read which (shock, horror) have been the Somme parts.

For once, Bill, I agree with you. I'll come back to this issue when I post my overview of this 'definintive' account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Will someone tell me how I am wrong , the map on Neueve Chapelle seems to show the British lost ground from March 10 to March 12 but they did not. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not read this book, but picked it up in the shop the other day. Did what I normally do, flick to the back and look in the index for Lt-Gen Snow- no surprise there I guess. However on page 414 Harris continues on about the aftermath of Cambrai and the blame. He sites the sending home of three Corps commanders, I think as some way to show a cover up (do not really disagree here myself) however he quotes Gen. Snow as being sent home by 3rd Jan, Pulteney in Feb and Woolcoombe in early march IIRC.

Ok I dont expect him to have read the Snow papers like I have, but... Snow asked to go home, was not sent home (unless someone can tell me different!) The evidence for Harris statement, an assumption from Becke's order of battle of changes of command. A big leap of faith/assumption?

Or is it just me being over sensitive?

Prepared to be corrected as I only had a quick look.

Regards

Arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing of the details of Snow`s case, Arm, but is it possible he asked to go as a better alternative to being sent? In other words, both are right - Haig wanted him out and Snow wanted to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't both be right, Phil. There is a big difference between being sent home and asking to be relieved. Same as resigning and having your resignation demanded are totally different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, some people resign rather than wait for the sacking they know is coming. Jumping before you are pushed looks somewhat better on the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence for Harris statement, an assumption from Becke's order of battle of changes of command. A big leap of faith/assumption?

I agree Arm - it is an assumption on Harris's part. And, as your own research on Snow demonstrates, an unwarranted assumption. His only citation for the paragraph in question is Becke. In other words three changes of command listed in an OOB are collectively given the pejorative spin of having been removals. Harris goes further, though, and refers to all three as 'sackings' which are implicitly and collectively linked as a punitive purge:

Byng had refused to acknowledge that mistakes by any senior officer had contributed to the reverse of 30 November. Yet the three corps commanders involved were all removed over the next few months: Snow on 3 January, Pultney on 16 February and Woollcombe on 11 March. Pultney of III Corps, admittedly, had rarely been a star performer before Cambrai and arguably he did not pay enough attention to Snow's warnings immediately prior to the German counter-offensive. But the justice of the other two sackings is more dubious.*

This book is incredibly shoddy in the lack of any discernable scholarly rigour involved in the conclusions it draws from mainly secondary sources - in that respect my anticipations about this book before I read it were 100% wrong. To correct them all would entail a virtual re-write of the whole book.

*Harris, pp. 414-5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, some people resign rather than wait for the sacking they know is coming. Jumping before you are pushed looks somewhat better on the record.

Exactly, and to represent one as being the other is a mistake to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my research shows that Snow was thinking of going long before Cambrai. Of course it is easy to assume that he could see the writing on the wall, especially as Allenby had been removed after Arras. But that is not the question here IMO. What the author is saying that these three paid with their careers. Of course as I say, it may be that Snow would have gone had he stayed. But certainly if the letters of Snow are to be believed and I have no reason to assume they are not, given his honesty in other sections then he wanted home as he knew he was unable to do the job!

Thanks for the above analysis folks.

regards

Arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Arm - it is an assumption on Harris's part. And, as your own research on Snow demonstrates, an unwarranted assumption. His only citation for the paragraph in question is Becke. In other words three changes of command listed in an OOB are collectively given the pejorative spin of having been removals. Harris goes further, though, and refers to all three as 'sackings' which are implicitly and collectively linked as a punitive purge:

Haig's own diary shows that he had visited Snow and been convinced of his preperation. This entry demonstrates that he does not seem to lay the blame at VII Corps headquarters.

Tuesday 4th December

“I next went to HQ VII Corps at Catelet about 3 miles east of Peronne and saw General

Snow and his staff (Jock Stuart is BGGS) He has very few troops to hold a wide front. The

55th division which is weak holds 15,000 yards!! He expected the attack because the enemy

had thrown 7 new bridges etc. and he accordingly did his best to prepare his left flank to

meet the blow. He personally went the day before to Villers Guislain (where he expected to

be attacked) and arranged for 13 extra machine gun posts! This he and Jeudwine

Commanding 55th thought would render the place unassailable. Apparently the British

fugitives rushing back in front of the enemy prevented our machine gunners firing and so all

were captured without firing a shot!”

Regards

Arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent citation in the context of this discussion Arm - though I appreciate that you may not be entirely comfortable in the role of pro-Haig advocacy! You may take some comfort from the fact that at least it demonstrates that you are not one of those researchers who lets a good story get in the way of the facts.

Best,

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for people giving books a good or bad rating, but as none of us are eminent writers, please bear in that Dr Harris is. Please see here for his list of publications..... Dr Harris - Sandhurst. I don't think for a moment that if he didn't do his research he'd even be considered to be given a listing by Sandhurst.

As Arm clearly stated, he saw the book in a shop and went to the back pages to check the index. We've all done this, but before anyone can pass judgement on any book, no matter how in depth, please stop to think - "Am I reading this right?" You cannot judge a book by simply glossing over a few pages.

Please think before you judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to disagree here. I am not a writer but I am, I hope, a thoughtful reader. Being the writer of several books does not make the next book any more likely to be correct than the first one. In fact there are precedents for established writers producing a turkey. This appeal to authority, he is endorsed by X therefore he must be right, flies in the face of all I believe. An author is as good as his references. In this case, there seems to be good reason to think that Harris has been careless in his choice. It is exactly in the case of an established writer who may have gone awry that we need to be warned that the book needs careful consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...he'd even be considered to be given a listing by Sandhurst."

Les, I believe the listing in that particular circumstance comes with Dr Harris' job. Perusing his publications list, it does not seem that Dr Harris is as knowledgeable (in the sense that he would wish to publish) on Great War subjects as his list of publications would suggest he is on Second World War topics. Indeed the War Studies Dept website does not list the Great War as one of its particular strengths. However Dr Harris is one of very few authors who has published on the hundred Days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for people giving books a good or bad rating, but as none of us are eminent writers, please bear in that Dr Harris is. Please see here for his list of publications..... Dr Harris - Sandhurst. I don't think for a moment that if he didn't do his research he'd even be considered to be given a listing by Sandhurst.

As Arm clearly stated, he saw the book in a shop and went to the back pages to check the index. We've all done this, but before anyone can pass judgement on any book, no matter how in depth, please stop to think - "Am I reading this right?" You cannot judge a book by simply glossing over a few pages.

Please think before you judge.

I must say I am somewhat surprised at this argument. Do I have to be an eminent writer to be as well-informed as Dr. Harris supposedly is? Does "eminent writer" automatically translate to "good historian" - I would wholeheartedly suggest "no". I may as well suggest that just because I have a large collection of books on WWI British naval history, that automatically makes me an expert, when obviously it doesn't. (My collection incidentally, is listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harlsbottom/Library )

To Truthergw I would submit that Harris was perhaps not careless in his choice of references, as that suggests that he wasn't at all thorough which doesn't do him much credit. I would say that he knew damn well what he was doing, which comes under the title of "misguided".

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon,

The word eminent was obviously used in error, so I apologise, but your reply goes to show what I'm trying to get at. Everyone has an opinion on Haig, the war, whatever, and the next man very rarely agrees with previous sentiments. Dr Harris may have written many books, mainly about WW2, but to make an opinion on any book without fully reading it is simply prejudging an outcome based on the readers own opinions.

I appreciate you may have a library, even have it listed on Wiki, but so do many of us (a library not Wiki). I have over 6000 books (many 1st editions) about wars ranging from the early 19th century through to Viet Nam. 95% of them are in storage as I no longer have room in the house and many are not worth the paper they are written on even if they were written "in the day". Yet at the time they were the resource for what went on even if opinions have changed over the years.

Bottom line is that no one will ever really agree on what is or isn't true/correct, no matter how much one thinks they know about a subject because someone else is going to come along and disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...