andigger Posted 10 March , 2004 Share Posted 10 March , 2004 I hate to bore the Pals with a long quote, but Terraine's statement in his intro to Win a War really struck me. What is your reaction to the idea that Lloyd George so influenced British post war opinion, especially about the returning soldiers that their sacrafices were so quickly forgotten? "In Britain there were several reasons (to forget the war) none of them very appealing. Above all, there was the Prime Minister's dislike and contempt for the Commander-in-Chief......Prompted by his cabinet colleagues, Lloyd George at the time described (Haig's and the army's) deeds as 'the greatest chapter in our military history'. Later, however, he made it his business to take away all credit from Haig and in so doing robbed the army of its just renown. In this he was fortified by his equal dislike of the theatre of war where the victory was won. Lloyd George hated the Western Front; that the war should be won there, largely by the man he so despised, made nonsense of his own cherished strategies and threw an unpleasant light on many of his policies. So he tried to pretend that it had not happened...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Moretti Posted 26 May , 2004 Share Posted 26 May , 2004 I could never say that he did it alone, but he certainly had many willing pairs of hands to help him (if indirectly). Terraine's view of the war and the way in which it has been interpreted is in many ways radically different from much of what went before, yet it seems to make a lot of sense (at least to me). Maybe I'm just one of his eager converts, I don't know... but if this quote was not THE truth, then there was certainly a lot of truth in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 27 May , 2004 Share Posted 27 May , 2004 Another book- Mud Blood and Poppycock By G Corrigan-which I've just started reading appears to take a similar line. It has a very good intro and one bit that sticks in the mind is when describing the purpose of an army(as opposed to the myth), the author tells of the demise of the army training manual entitled Shoot To Kill. Apparently it was considered too likely to promote aggression in a PC world. His remark that Shoot To Miss was not a very heartening substitute made me chuckle(cue my 10 year old giving me grief about"what are you finding to laugh about in a book like that"-disapproving stare-eeh 10 year olds eh, or is it their teachers?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Miller Posted 27 May , 2004 Share Posted 27 May , 2004 I find it totally believable - history is written by the victors, or at least those in power. I wanted to read John Terraine's book specifically to find a positive outlook on the last year of the war. I don't know whether it's a British thing (it might well be), but when one is learning about the war, say on a group battlefield tour, all concentration is on what went wrong; the dates of 25/9/15, 1/7/16, and 21/3/18 quickly become magnets of morbid interest. So little seems to be made of the 'hundred days', where the British Army 'got it right', although at a still huge cost of casualties. This syndrome is so prevalent, that I, and I am sure several others, begin to wonder how the Germans lost the argument on the Western Front (if you believe they did). I have one book that shows battle casualties as a pie chart. The only chart that shows the allies as 'winners' of any particular battle, as in having the least casualties, is 1st Ypres. 1918 is not covered.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 27 May , 2004 Share Posted 27 May , 2004 I am not sure. There were other powerful reasons why the experience of the First World War needed to be quickly dulled. Martin Samuels, in his book 'Command or Control?', makes the point that the British Official History project threatened to reveal the true extent of the mistakes that were made. The initial scope of the project was radically altered and the final editions became more palatable (though still capable of arousing concern). Thus, the reputations of several key military personalities, perhaps including Haig, were at risk if the full truth about the years prior to the last hundred days was made known. It was interesting to see Gardner's conclusions in 'Trial by Fire' about the lengths that Haig went to in preventing people from learning about his mistake in not joining up with Smith-Dorrien after the retreat around the Forest of Mormal. If you multiply this type of mistake up many-fold by including other senior officers throughout the army, then once the immediate post-war acknowledgements have faded away and questions are being asked, perhaps it is just as well that things are kept 'in their proper place'. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now