AlanCurragh Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 I've not read it but Gary Sheffield has a new biography of Haig out - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chief-Douglas-Haig-British-Army/dp/1845136918/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317979555&sr=8-1 ..and if you can make it to England next March you can come to the Great War Forum conference and hear Professor Sheffield speaking about Haig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Excellent thanks Alan, not sure if that one is available but will have a sqiz at the library computer tomorrow and see. is the Haig an Educated Soldier any good? the other one i tossed up getting in was called 'Haig and the Historians' or something. it sounded like it would be ok roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 i'd like to read a book that agrees with you. but if that is out of the question thats ok Roger, on the question of Haig I don't base my own opinions on 'a book', but upon several years extensive research in the archives, as well as in secondary published sources. Which is why when I post a conclusion or opinion of my own I reference examples of the sources, primary and secondary, upon which I base it. If anyone wishes to challenge my opinions or conclusions they are of course free to do so, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that any such challenges are also referenced to any verifiable sources upon which they're based. The background research to your own forceful but unsubstantiated assertions is now duly noted. The one book which you say you have completed, Haig's diaries (though you don't say whether this was the Blake or Sheffield & Bourne edition), you categorise as "not rivetting". But whether or not you found the diaries to be a 'riveting' read is beside the point - where in them did you find evidence for the assertions about Haig which you make in your last two posts? You also seem not to have taken on board earlier references in this thread to the fact that the two published selections from Haig's wartime diaries represent just a fraction of the total, on top of which is the voluminous additional primary source material in the Haig Papers also held at the National Library of Scotland. By the way, your definition of Kiwi usage of 'jingo' must be a new development, it certainly wasn't common currency in that context when I lived there. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Hi George what does Jingos mean then? everyone i know uses it how i have explained and i have lived here all my life, my dad used it that way, my grand dad used it that way and he served in both ww1 and ww2 cheers roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 As I say, it's a new one on me, Roger. If you're genuinely baffled, and it's more important to you than the other points I raised in my last post, then perhaps try googling jingo to see how it's understood by most of the English speaking world - particularly in the context of a sceptic addressing supporters of a British Imperial figure like Haig. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Hi George nope just googled Jingo to check it out and as stated 'Jingos' is "BY JINGO BY CRIKEY = Expression of shock and surprise " thats Austrailan slang according to a google search. Wikipedia tends to agree "The phrase "by Jingo" was a long-established minced oath, used to avoid saying "by Jesus". " then also found a poem which pre dates both of us; We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true The Russians shall not have Constantinople . but anyway we are off on a tangent now cheers roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 If nothing else, at least you're beginning to found your opinion on sources, Roger. A pity you cant bring the same technique to bear on your opinions relating to the subject of this thread. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 particularly in the context of a sceptic addressing supporters of a British Imperial figure like Haig. George thanks. you have kind of summed up my thoughts on the whole discussion when it comes to some Haig supporters. its a shame, i'd actually like to learn more about this great man who lead the British and the colonials to victory. but if anyone dares question...well... they are frog marched out and shot. amongst mocking and jeers. Haig actually deserves better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 7 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2011 An arresting comment on page 507 of Walter Reid's book : He would not have been much fun as a dinner companion - at least in his early and middle years. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 but if anyone dares question...they are frog marched out and shot. amongst mocking and jeers. I wondered when you'd resort to trotting that one out, Roger. You're not the first and won't be the last. When asked simply to provide some substance for your assertions on Haig you resort to claiming you're being bullied or, as you put it, 'frog marched out and shot'. Claiming to be the little man making unpopular but valid points to 'mocking and jeers' is clearly an easier option than actually doing a bit of reading prior to putting together a credible set of conclusions referenced to your findings. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Is the phrase, "Slow Horses and Fast Women" under copyright? It's given me the idea for an autobiography; Slow Horses and Fast Women: Salesie, The Early Years, followed by a sequal, Even Slower Horses and Nowhere Near Fast Women: Salesie, The Decline. Anyone want to place advance orders for copies? Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWorrall Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Books on Haig? Walter Reid: Douglas Haig; Architect of victory Gary Mead: The good soldier J. P. Harris: Douglas Haig and the First World War G. D. Sheffield's 'The Chief' has been mentioned. John Davidson: Master of the field Andrew Wiest: Haig; the evolution of a commander (an excellent short volume) Brian Bond & Nigel Cave (eds.): Haig; a re-appraisal 80 years on All recent volumes and well-worth reading if you wish the benefits of modern academic research & thought. Simon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Anyone want to place advance orders for copies? It sounds like a cautionary tale, old mucker, but put me down for a copy of the sequel so I know the pitfalls to avoid. Curious George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 It sounds like a cautionary tale, old mucker, but put me down for a copy of the sequel so I know the pitfalls to avoid. Curious George Ouch! Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Hi George you really miss the point. I have read your posts on other threads and seen how these discussions go and here is how this would go... I would as i did in my first post quote Passchendaele, you would tell me how foolish and uneducated i am and quote Messines. I would say wasn't that Plummer? You would rubbish me and say Haig was in charge I would say well wasn't he also in charge at Passchendaele? You would rubbish that and say no how foolish. I'd say didn't Haig reckon that tanks were a waste of time at the start and the Cavalry would always be the main mobility, couldn't that be a mistake? You would rubbish this and quote after quote would follow i'd ask why after the horror of the 1st of July 1916 was this repeated the next day? you would rubbish this and say i knew nothing heres my point we would both spend far too much wasted time over a week and in the end you would call me as you have a 'Septic' or some other educated name calling episode while self congradulating the brilliance of those in the 'Haig club' and how sad it is that you have to deal with us. ...just like all the other threads on Haig. So all i have done is fast track us to the inevitable end, you end you mocking and name calling anyone who dares try to question or trying to understand the man and the muddy water that is around after 90 years. i've saved us both a week and got us here in 1 day. the point is. Jingos - some of us would actually like to discuss this in an environment conclusive to learning - instead every thread seems to be hijacked. so i the 'Septic' sign off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Books on Haig? Walter Reid: Douglas Haig; Architect of victory Gary Mead: The good soldier J. P. Harris: Douglas Haig and the First World War G. D. Sheffield's 'The Chief' has been mentioned. John Davidson: Master of the field Andrew Wiest: Haig; the evolution of a commander (an excellent short volume) Brian Bond & Nigel Cave (eds.): Haig; a re-appraisal 80 years on All recent volumes and well-worth reading if you wish the benefits of modern academic research & thought. Simon. excellent thanks Simon. i have purchased "the Chief' on Amazon just now - it is on special too for $29 NZ cheers roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 So all i have done is fast track us to the inevitable end, you end you mocking and name calling anyone who dares try to question. No, Roger. Your first two posts on this thread are the assertions of someone who is confident in the facts of what they say. Anyone reading it would assume that you were basing such assertions on your interpretation of source matertial - even if that seemed likely to be of the 'Butchers and Bunglers' variety. When asked to simply provide evidence for even just a couple of your assertions you have revealed that, actually, you've read nothing of substance about Haig. Fair enough. But you can't then complain when your off the cuff opinions on Haig are not accorded credibility as argument against the source referenced conclusions of others on this thread, and claim that you're just here to learn. You came onto this thread telling us how it was as far as Haig is concerned. You now resort to setting out a whole outlandish post of 'points' by you and imagined 'responses' from me which you have written in their entirety yourself - as well as making false claims that you've been called names. Give it a rest, Roger. If you want to read up on Haig I encourage you do so, and hope that you will do so before again criticising the source-based conclusions of others from a self-confessed position of ignorance of the subject. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCurragh Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 heres my point we would both spend far too much wasted time over a week and in the end you would call me as you have a 'Septic' or some other educated name calling episode while self congradulating the brilliance of those in the 'Haig club' and how sad it is that you have to deal with us. ...just like all the other threads on Haig. Please forgive me, Roger, but I assume you do know that George called you a "sceptic" rather than a "septic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 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? Try a search on Amazon, Search on Haig. Any will do and after three or four, you will start to get a feel for the ones you would like to read next. May I say that you are admirably frank in your admission that your views are lacking in any sort of content? In fact, if you have no opinion on Haig and need guidance as to a book to read, perhaps it would not be too unfair to describe your views as not so much dogmatic as mischievous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Who could forget Pilot Officer 'Septic' Baird in Angels One Five? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 7 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Please forgive me, Roger, but I assume you do know that George called you a "sceptic" rather than a "septic"? "Septic" is a term that Londoners use for yanks, not Kiwis. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Opps Alan yes your very right i have mis-read it my apologies to George. You say Septic we say Sceptic. you say jingos we say, lets call the whole thing off... i kind of liked 'septic' though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 7 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Was Haig disdainful of the more frivolous activities of the Mess because he saw them as prejudicial to the professionalism of the Officer ? Did he admire the efforts of Sir Garnet Wolseley, who remarked, IIRC, that too many British officers were fine chaps to enjoy a drink with, but useless when it came to the science of command ? Perhaps Haig's induction coincided with the maximum impact of Wolseley's reforms, and this must have influenced him. He was good at Polo, and this surely entailed social activities. He was wary of the saucy behaviour of some officers' wives. I'm trying hard to like him - too hard, perhaps. But he wouldn't have given a toss, would he ? Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Who could forget Pilot Officer 'Septic' Baird in Angels One Five? Ah ... dear John Gregson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 7 October , 2011 Share Posted 7 October , 2011 Ah ... dear John Gregson. I say, do you mind? To bring this back on topic, I am unreliably informed that Haig was indeed initially sceptical of the idea of using tanks as war-winning weapons, until he realised that they weren't referring to septic tanks..... George 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