Douglas Haig and the First World War

[simonharley]

I do appreciate your point on judging a book on its references: nothing can be substituted for thorough reading of a book. However, I do think that one can often safely assume the standards or breadth involved by checking either the bibliography and the index. This does swing both ways, in that a book may have an excellent array of sources referenced and the author then proceeds to butcher them.

"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."

All too true.

Simon

[George Armstrong Custer]

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 had read the Haris book before commenting thank you, Les. Frankly your posts here are some of the most extraordinary I've seen on this forum from a moderator . I don't care how many books someone has written previously - if I find the one I'm reading to be poorly researched, selectively derivative and prejudiced I'll say so. To suggest that we should somehow be in awe of Harris simply because he is previously published and has a tenure at Sandhurst is ludicrous. To suggest that because he is an 'eminent' or even just a published author that his conclusions should therefore have any form of immunity from criticism is equally ludicrous.

You twice mention the fact that Arm's query was based on a single reading of one passage from the book. So what? He made it clear that he didn't have the book to hand to check if he was correctly understanding what seemed to be a mistake in interpretation and invited anyone who did have the book to correct his interpretation if he'd got it wrong. I have the book, and I've read it in it's entirety. Twice. I have gone to and read Harris's cited secondary sources. I am in the process of checking the more important of his primary sources - though it has to be said that many of these are referenced by Harris via secondary sources - ie in these cases he hasn't been to the original primary sources himself but is relying on citations by others. I have found numerous flaws errors or oversights in Harris's use of primary and secondary sources throughout the book. I repeat, it is my opinion that Harris has produced a shoddily researched and referenced book which is intentionally pejorative. It is, however, well written. This combination is dangerous precisely because of the undeserved credibility which his academic credentials and the academic imprint of his publisher may lend this book in the eyes of less informed or critical readers.

It seems to me that your first post, whilst making no contribution to the discussion of the pros or cons of Harris's book as far as your own conclusions are concerned, amounts to little more than a warning off from criticising published or tenured academic authors which, given that no forum rules have been even remotely broken on this thread, seems ill judged and comes perilously close to censoring freedom of expression on this forum.

George

[truthergw]

No book should be judged unread. I agree and it is hard to see how anyone could disagree with that. However, we regulars in the Book review forum put up reviews and opinions on books we have read and use those posted by others to decide which books should be at the top of the buying list. My remarks were made about writers and books in general and not at a particular book. Criticism was made here by people of certain aspects of this book which can be judged as and of themselves. It is not necessary to have read the book to believe that questionable use of a reference is a a fault. Whether the use of the reference is due to carelessness or a particular agenda, I refrain from comment. I feel the former is the more charitable assumption.

As to the actual book under discussion, it is no secret that I am interested in Haig's career and any new book is immediately on my probable purchase list. However, there are books on Haig which could well be put into storage since they bring nothing to the discussion. I am obviously interested in knowing whether this book is one of those or whether, regardless of its stance, it is a worthy addition to the shelf. At the moment, bearing in mind what I have read here in the discussion, I am minded to wait for the paperback.

[armourersergeant]

I often find the best books to read are those that perhaps do not reinforce your own way of thinking, as they ask you to question the assertion of the author and then justify your own stance on the matter. I am minded to read this book before some others that have been published on Haig recently. However I am awaiting Bryn's Cambrai book so that is next on my reading list.

Given that a book is often sold on sound bites, dust jacket ads etc, I do not feel a look at the index and assessment of a particular part of the book is unsound. It does of course not allow for the full content of the book. Given that the information I have about Snow is from heavy research I would perhaps have been more surprised if he had have been aware of it. Does that make the assumption any the better- no not really. That however was not to be a criticism/assessment of the book as a whole, I can not of course do that until I have read it.

I may read this one as it sparks something in me, even though I have declined the two more recent books about Haig.

Regards

Arm

[Bryn_Hammond]

I'd just like to make one comment about Dr Harris' areas of historical expertise, knowledge and interest. His book 'Men, Ideas and Tanks' is an excellent examination of British military thought on the tank both during and after the First World War and I thoroughly recommend it.

I should also declare he was the external examiner for my doctoral thesis as a consequence of his work on armoured warfare. In other words, his credentials as a historian are established.

Haven't read the Haig book. Am reading Gary Mead's biography. Anyone want to send me a review copy of Harris' book on Haig for the same reasons cited by George in another thread?

Bryn

[PMHart]

I should also declare he was the external examiner for my doctoral thesis as a consequence of his work on armoured warfare. In other words, his credentials as a historian are established.

Hi chums,

I'm not sure being the external examiner of Bryn's thesis qualifies him as anything other than an insomniac with a nasty facial tic!

In a more serious vein his book on Haig, though indeed well-written has on my initial 'flick through' proved to be riddled with sloppy thinking and involving a great deal of biased speculation as to what Haig's motives were or 'how he felt'! I wonder if Mills and Boon are missing an author with empathy and lots of academic qualifications? I base this on looking quickly at the parts I am interested in and know a little about - in these as for our earlier chum I found Harris sadly wanting. His past reputation matters ****** all to me - I haven't heard of him and I'm damn sure he hasn't heard of me - so as far as I'm concerned we're all square.

I will read it properly and hope to review it hear in a week or so. I may have to eat my words but I doubt it!!!!

Pete

[Bryn_Hammond]

Hi chums,

I'm not sure being the external examiner of Bryn's thesis qualifies him as anything other than an insomniac with a nasty facial tic!

In a more serious vein his book on Haig, though indeed well-written has on my initial 'flick through' proved to be riddled with sloppy thinking and involving a great deal of biased speculation as to what Haig's motives were or 'how he felt'! I wonder if Mills and Boon are missing an author with empathy and lots of academic qualifications? I base this on looking quickly at the parts I am interested in and know a little about - in these as for our earlier chum I found Harris sadly wanting. His past reputation matters ****** all to me - I haven't heard of him and I'm damn sure he hasn't heard of me - so as far as I'm concerned we're all square.

I will read it properly and hope to review it hear in a week or so. I may have to eat my words but I doubt it!!!!

Pete

Please note how Peter has doctored my emoticon (ooh err missis!). This is blatant manipulation of the source material!

[PMHart]

Please note how Peter has doctored my emoticon (ooh err missis!). This is blatant manipulation of the source material!

Only done in the spirit of Harris and his masterly manipulation of secondary Haig sources!!!

Affectionate Pete

[Old Tom]

Hello,

I have now read about a third of Harris's book and am pleased with it. In the light of some of the previous comments; I would agree that much of the content is based on other's work, but this is usually clear from the context and notes. It seems to me that Harris is, in many cases, rehearsing matters that have been well aired before - bite and hold v breakthrough for example - but is relating them to material issues in an admirable way. His personal views may not be history but I find they add to my appreciation of the contentious but nevertheless important figure in the Great War.

Old Tom

[David Filsell]

I think that this discussion reveals one major point if GACs careful reading of the book is correct - and I have no reason to believe that it is not. (And if the book is lacking in scholalrly rigour - and I noted early on its large use of secondary sources) Then there remains room for a new work on Haig as a commander. Wether or not that would meet the concerns expressed in this thread is of course open to question. Not least it would need to evaluate in detail Haig's influence on planning at Corps and even divisional level, his appointments and 'unappointments' etc, etc. From my knowledge of primary sources it would take years of work and stiil the need would remain for a considerable amount of crystal ball application. I suppose the question also remains that will/could such a work further clarify Haig's performance and abilities or is Harris likely to become the reference work on the topic. One must also ask if it is likely - in the next decade or so - that any publisher will be interested in such a work. I do know that Harris had a devil of a job to get his book published, I have also been informed that Gary Sheffield's work on Haig - for whatever reason(s) has been shelved. That all being so it remains important to apply the microscope to Harris's conclusions and the quality of his work.

I think that this discussion reveals one major point if GACs careful reading of the book is correct - and I have no reason to believe that it is not. (And if the book is lacking in scholalrly rigour - and I noted early on its large use of secondary sources) Then there remains room for a new work on Haig as a commander. Wether or not that would meet the concerns expressed in this thread is of course open to question. Not least it would need to evaluate in detail Haig's influence on planning at Corps and even divisional level, his appointments and 'unappointments' etc, etc. From my knowledge of primary sources it would take years of work and stiil the need would remain for a considerable amount of crystal ball application. I suppose the question also remains that will/could such a work further clarify Haig's performance and abilities or is Harris likely to become the reference work on the topic. One must also ask if it is likely - in the next decade or so - that any publisher will be interested in such a work. I do know that Harris had a devil of a job to get his book published, I have also been informed that Gary Sheffield's work on Haig - for whatever reason(s) has been shelved. That all being so it remains important to apply the microscope to Harris's conclusions and the quality of his work.

[armourersergeant]

David,

I happen to have a different angle on this Haig debate. STOP!

Lets look not at the head but at the arms and the legs and the heart. See how the body grew and developed over three years under his tenure and see how then he developed, or perhaps more relevantly, he let others develop under him that led the learning curve to adapt to a war winning weapon.

It seems that as he moved further away from the actual fighting side, the BEF performed better. That is not meant as a criticism but as a way he learnt to become less involved and took his rightful role as a Commander in Chief.

Regards

Arm

[David Filsell]

Arm

Don't disagree with either STOP - but I don't think it can or will - and your points about his changing role. The fact is that his Army and Corps Commanders clearly improved in confidence and ability under his overall command.

Best regards

David

[Old Tom]

David,

One of the reasons they improved was that they all, initially, found themselves in positions several steps up from their pre war experience. The Somme was Haig's first operation as C in C and Rawlinson's first as an army commander; I suspect the same applies to many of the corps commanders. As is often stated before the war the British army only had corps for the annual manoeuvre. The 'learning curve' for senior officers is interesting and, I suppose, must be a subjective topic.

Old Tom

[truthergw]

It is natural for those who study WW1 to tend to concentrate on a particular aspect. No-one can really study all of it, there is just too much. We tend to find one aspect that engages our interest more than others and we will dig deeply in that corner. The downside of that is to perhaps forget or never even realise that the war was not fought in a vacuum. The fighting may have taken place in France and further afield but in fact, it was controlled from London. Every major battle as well as the day to day conduct of the war was carried on to a background of ceaseless political feuding and interparty strife that made Verdun and Passchendaele look like staff rides. These battles had little or no relationship to strategy and none to tactics. They were fought because every politician for the whole period of the war and before and after, saw the single worst outcome that could threaten the country as being a loss of his power or influence. Nothing would have been as serious as him losing a job in government or his seat in a committee. This resulted in factional struggle where every dirty political trick was employed against particular soldiers because they were identified with particular political factions. It went like this. Haig was grouped with The King, Lord Esher and the Liberals who espoused a Western policy. They thought that the war would be won on the Western Front. Any opponent of any of those elements fought as hard as he could with every weapon he possessed against any of the elements. If you were against Liberals you were also against Haig and the Western Front, so the Battle of the Somme was a pointless bloodbath. So it went on for the whole of the war. Haig's longest battle and greatest victory was over his own prime minister.

[paul guthrie]

Maybe so Tom, nonetheless I consider DLG a very intelligent man who made an excellent war PM, a much stronger man than Asquith and see no one who would have done as well.

This does not mean he's a man I would have liked, after all I think mrs. Thatcher was a good firm, very smart war time leader too.

[truthergw]

Maybe so Tom, nonetheless I consider DLG a very intelligent man who made an excellent war PM, a much stronger man than Asquith and see no one who would have done as well.

This does not mean he's a man I would have liked, after all I think mrs. Thatcher was a good firm, very smart war time leader too.

My post was not intended as a criticism or otherwise of LL-G but to show that the debate on whether men should have attacked in waves or in artillery formation on 1st July and whether Haig was remiss in enforcing one or the other, might perhaps be missing some of the more pressing problems he had to contend with. I may start a thread on Ll-G but I will limit my observations here to stating my belief that as prime minister, he should have backed him or sacked him. His wheeling and dealing twice came near to losing the war. He himself was well aware of that and I believe that accounts for some of the bile which he spewed forth in his so called War Memoirs.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I agree that this isn't the place to reopen the Haig/L-G debate per se. But I will say this - if asked whether it would have been better for the cause of Britain and her allies for one of the most mendacious and self-serving politicians in British history to go, rather than the first great Commander-in-Chief of a vast citizen army of the 20th century, I'd certainly say that getting rid of Haig and replacing him with a L-G compliant C-in-C would have been the most dangerous option by a long chalk. On this, forget Harris's speciously 'balanced' account. Walter Roch MP got L-G bang to rights and nailed him in his 1920 book Mr Lloyd George and the War. L-G's own book over a dozen years later unscrupulously used the dead Haig as a scapegoat and shield against those in the know like Roch. By turning on the military to hide his own mistakes and machinations, L-G made a large contribution to the disenfranchisement of the due acknowledgement of the achievement of the whole BEF. To coin a phrase, I'd call the L-G school of war historiography the 'Hyenas hiding behind dead Lions' School.

[squirrel]

Perhaps the time to quote my uncle who was in F & F from 1915 to 1919 as a Serjeant with the RFA.

This was said in the late 1970's "I'm still waiting for the home fit for a hero to live in that that lying ******* Loyd George promised me."

[bmac]

I have not read Walter Roch's book but, as an ex-MP and Asquith Supporter, might he too not have had his own axe to grind, especially after the destruction of the Asquithian Liberal Party in 1918 Coupon Election? Genuine question: just how objective would he have been and were his views publicly supported by other contemporary politicians after the book's publication?

[truthergw]

I cannot resist adding this little nugget. In late 1917 when the build up of German forces on the Western front was exercising the minds of the Allies, Ll-g was moving heaven and earth to get rid of 'Wully' Robertson as Ll-G had convinced himself that Robertson was plotting to take over direction of the war and cabinet and install himself as Military Dictator a la Ludendorff.

[truthergw]

I have not read Walter Roch's book but, as an ex-MP and Asquith Supporter, might he too not have had his own axe to grind, especially after the destruction of the Asquithian Liberal Party in 1918 Coupon Election? Genuine question: just how objective would he have been and were his views publicly supported by other contemporary politicians after the book's publication?

No politician is ever objective in his analysis of events or other politicians. Every man who is a politician is convinced that he brings something unique and worthwhile to the debate. If he is successful, his rise in status will confirm that idea. As I said earlier, eventually his greatest efforts will be directed to maintaining himself in power and aiming ever higher. All this in the genuine belief that, like General Motors, what is good for him is good for the country. When reading political memoirs, that must always be borne in mind. For those with the time, I can recommend choosing a time of political crisis, real or imagined, and reading two or three political memoirs of the chief players. Generally it will be difficult to recognise the events described, as being the same. There is an oft quoted remark by a politician to the effect, " Winston has just written a book all about himself and called it, " The World in Crisis". That insight could be applied to most politicians.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I have not read Walter Roch's book but, as an ex-MP and Asquith Supporter, might he too not have had his own axe to grind, especially after the destruction of the Asquithian Liberal Party in 1918 Coupon Election? Genuine question: just how objective would he have been and were his views publicly supported by other contemporary politicians after the book's publication?

I can see where you'd like to go with this Bill, but I'm happy to debate it with you as it's an interesting and little discussed area. As noted, though, I don't want the L-G debate to derail this thread which is about the credibility of Harris's work. I'd suggest you read Walter Roch's book then start a thread on the questions you've raised above - I'm sure it'll generate much interest (and not a little heat!)

Suffice to say here that, in 1920 a former MP (Roch served from 1908 until 1918) stood about as much chance of gaining vocal support for criticisms of L-G's handling of the war from fellow MP's who were still sitting in the House as Tony Blair's critics did. It's worth noting briefly that Roch was a Liberal and from Wales, yet neither swayed him from voicing strong criticisms of L-G both during and after the war. Roch was a convinced 'Westerner' who saw L-G's penchant for adventures in other theatres a dangerous diversion - something Roch voiced as a dissenting member of the Dardanelles Commission. As I say, read Roch's book then get a thread going - though no doubt you'll need to grit your teeth over Roch's praise of Haig as C-in-C. The Roch book's criticisms of L-G generated much comment on both sides of the Atlantic - see as an example of this the article from the NY Times below (and note the early date, January 1920 - Roch's book was compiled in 1918/19 and so is an honest and fresh account of his thinking during the war and unaffected by the later post-war battle of self-serving political-military memoirs. Put it this way - whilst like everyone else he had his own agenda, I find Roch's position and his book to be one of far greater integrity than those of L-G):

[bmac]

Currently I don't plan to go anywhere much with this as I have enough on my plate I would have thought, though, that there must have been quite a few disgruntled Liberal ex-MPs after 1918 who might have taken a view.

I take it that the 'great attack of 1917' as mentioned in the NY Times piece is the Nivelle offensive? Also, I've not come across anything previously to support Roch's assertion, as set out in the NY Times, that Lloyd George was somehow responsible for Britain's involvement in the war. Fascinating. What evidence supports this?

[George Armstrong Custer]

Currently I don't plan to go anywhere much with this as I have enough on my plate

Fair enough, Bill.

I've not come across anything previously to support Roch's assertion, as set out in the NY Times, that Lloyd George was somehow responsible for Britain's involvement in the war. Fascinating. What evidence supports this?

But....but....I thought you just said...........Anyway, an excellent question to start a new thread off with don't you think?

[bmac]

"Anywhere much" And 'much' is now done