phil andrade Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Phil "Got of lightly" as compared to who? Are there any WW1 officers of comparable rank from any of the armies involved with which you think Haig compares unfavourably? Barry No, Barry....and no way do I want to join the ranks of the Haig bashers. I find it very moving when I read about the conduct of Wellington - another emotionally contained or controlled man - who endured an experience so harrowing that his humanity overwhelmed his reserve. I wonder if Haig's alleged constraint resulted not so much from innate coldness as from the fact (?) that he was not exposed to such an extreme experience as that of witnessing the scene at the breach at Badajoz. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Sorry, double posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Wellington and Grant fought their battles, by necessity, in the narrow compass of a black powder arena. They were, I believe, so closely involved that each of them, at one time or another, was spattered with the blood, guts and brains of their soldiers. Was Haig ever in a situation that was comparable ? Ah - so only being splashed by another man's blood will do for you. Haig had experienced that nearly twenty years before becoming C-in-C of the BEF, as he carried a wounded Egyptian soldier fom the field of Artbara whilst under fire. It would hardly have occurred to him to contrive to repeat the exercise as C-in-C of the largest army ever fielded by Britain simply in order to satisfy some of the stranger demands of posterity. As has been noted by others here, how many other C-in-C's of the other combatant nations in the Great War were splashed by a soldiers blood whilst holding that office - and how many are now implicitly criticised for not having done so? Here's a link to an account of Haig at Atbara George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 I'm afraid that a lot of people cannot get away from the notion of "passive-suffering" when they consider warfare in general and WW1 in particular. In my opinion, many of PJA's posts display the intellectual-deadlock that an over reliance on "passive-suffering" places on reasoned and balanced thought processes i.e. he seems to have an over-reliance on casualty figures, and on occasions he seems overwhelmed with thoughts of the suffering and the emotional responses to it, so much so that sometimes he cannot see beyond the blood and gore and thus turns said suffering into the same passivity of thought that is reflected in the work of Wilfred Owen et al. Whereas in warfare, although there is plenty of suffering it is far from being passive. It is probably true to say that Wellington shed tears after Badahoz, and when surveying the field after Waterloo made the comment that "The next worse thing to a battle lost is a battle won", and Grant may well have shed a tear on occasion, but both men did not turn their emotions into passivity of thought; both men kept on, in the realisation that suffering may well be increased if they didn't - just as Haig did. And, surely, the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, probably as a result of the understandably held notions of passive-suffering stemming from WW1, shows us that suffering is increased if allowing such notions to overwhelm us? There are plenty of examples of Haig's true emotions towards the "suffering" of his men (provided by George and others), so why see Haig as being so different to Wellington and Grant in essence (or any other successful General for that matter)? Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 9 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 October , 2011 I'm afraid that a lot of people cannot get away from the notion of "passive-suffering" when they consider warfare in general and WW1 in particular. In my opinion, many of PJA's posts display the intellectual-deadlock that an over reliance on "passive-suffering" places on reasoned and balanced thought processes i.e. he seems to have an over-reliance on casualty figures, and on occasions he seems overwhelmed with thoughts of the suffering and the emotional responses to it, so much so that sometimes he cannot see beyond the blood and gore and thus turns said suffering into the same passivity of thought that is reflected in the work of Wilfred Owen et al. Whereas in warfare, although there is plenty of suffering it is far from being passive. Cheers-salesie. What ! No "Oxymorons" ? Oh. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Oh. Excuse me but that is copyright of Paylor Enterprises, and I expect you will now be receiving a stiff letter from their solicitors. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 What ! No "Oxymorons" ? Oh. Phil (PJA) Yes, no oxymorons this time, Phil. But, given time, I'm sure you'll oblige. Cheers-salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 [quote name='George Armstrong Custer' timestamp='1318113881' Several of these machine gunners fought like fanatics and instead of surrendering when surrounded blew out their brains." George Presumably what ever system was in use to chain these chaps to their maching guns didn't hamper suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Presumably what ever system was in use to chain these chaps to their maching guns didn't hamper suicide? Look here, do you mind - I'm trying to watch The Man Who Would Be King. Actually Steve, that did cross my mind too! I wonder what supposed evidence for this Nugent based his report to Haig on. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Look here, do you mind - I'm trying to watch The Man Who Would Be King. Actually Steve, that did cross my mind too! I wonder what supposed evidence for this Nugent based his report to Haig on. George I bet they didn't commit suicide at all. I bet that they were watched over by the wifie snipers from Gallipoli who had been made redundant by the Turks and taken on by the Hun as Gastarbeiter to keep their machine gunners in line. Cheaper than chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 You've convinced me, Tom. If there's a flaw in that explanation, I can't see it. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 So these Turkish women snipers: how far behind the Lines were they? Did they have their own chateux? Were they in German uniform, Turkish uniform, or were they disguised as French peasant women? I'm not saying they didn't exist, but I think there's a need for some research. What happened if they were in danger of capture? Did they shoot themselves, each other, or was someone else involved? If so, who? Come on, chaps - evidence. Facts, Mr Gradgrind said. Facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenie Posted 9 October , 2011 Share Posted 9 October , 2011 Ruddy brillant and so true lmao. Your post has really made me laugh and has said it all. 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...
phil andrade Posted 12 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2011 Haig's fastidious regard to his health would, I suspect, have made him wary of fast women : the dangers of contracting "a dose" were pretty extreme in those days. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 12 October , 2011 Share Posted 12 October , 2011 It is, of course, equally possible that Haig forewent the attractions of the flesh from a fear for his soul rather than for his health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 12 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2011 Today Gary Sheffield's book THE CHIEF arrived, courtesy of Amazon. I've read the first forty pages, and am thoroughly enjoying it. An anecdote about his paternal care for the ORs...... in his youthful days as a subaltern, he was busily engaged with one of his fellow officers, in an English town, buying fish and chips for the men. I can't help wondering whether he remembered to insist on salt and vinegar ! Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 13 October , 2011 Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Knowing nothing of Haig's sexual habits, I actually find that quite offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 13 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Knowing nothing of Haig's sexual habits, I actually find that quite offensive. Perhaps Haig found the sexual habits of his men quite offensive, too. He must have been au fait with the prevalence of VD, and I daresay this caused him some consternation. He probably discussed it with his Chaplain. My grandfather was a Chaplain on the Western Front, and the only thing he was ever willing to tell me about his experience was how appalled he was at the numbers of men who contracted VD. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 13 October , 2011 Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Perhaps Haig.... [.....] He must have been.... [.....] I daresay.... [.....] He probably.... [.....] Not much upon which to found holding a man's imagined sexual habits (or lack thereof) up for ridicule on the GWF though, is it? Imagine if someone did that about a named 'Tommy' - there'd be quite an outcry from some about how offended any of his familial descendants who read it here might be. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 13 October , 2011 Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Can we avoid idle and pointless speculation please. This is not an entertainment area. This thread is very much in danger of closure. Thank you Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 13 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Heaven forfend that I, as instigator of this thread, should be the architect of its downfall, on account of my puerile humour. My apologies....I am mortified at the prospect of giving offence. I do have a serious question to pose in regard to Haig's views on the sexual conduct of his soldiers. He must have been aquainted with the barrack room mores of the "old sweats" : his duties as adjutant necessarily entailed keeping account of absenteeism or invalidiity, and the rates of infection were surely high, especially in India (?). As a man who tried very hard to keep his own health up to the mark, he might have had strong views about the exposure of his men to the threat of VD. Moreover, his religious conviction needs to be taken into account. Monty - hardly a man for the ladies - was adamant that his soldiers should have access to brothels, both for pragmatic reasons and because he felt that the men deserved their "horizontal refreshment". T. E. Lawrence, who was probably gay, forbade access to prostitiutes and there were one or two notorious incidents which were attributed to this compelled abstinence. Did Haig ever allude to these matters ? More specifically, did he comment on the incidence of VD in the BEF ? The numbers were pretty large, and were bound to impinge on rifle strength. I know that he was intolerant of the reputed drunkeness among munitions workers ; was there analogous dismay and anger at men who were rendered unfit by VD ? Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 13 October , 2011 Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Why worry about whether he did or not? Surely you can just imagine an answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 13 October , 2011 Share Posted 13 October , 2011 Phil, you are thrashing about like a swimmer trying desperately to attract the attentions of a Great White shark. You have a good and valid question based on your grandfather's experience, so please focus on it and spare us stuff like "T E Lawrence, who was probably gay ...". Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 13 October , 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October , 2011 The incidence of VD was significantly higher in 1914-15 than it was to be in 1916-17, expressed in terms of numbers per thousand of the BEF's ration strength who contracted the disease. The decrease coincides with Haig's assumption of command. Is it fanciful to see a connection here ? Armies have been profoundly influenced by the imprint of a commander's personality. Montgomery liked to promulgate this. Lee certainly imbued his warriors with a special quality, with religious matters assuming prominence. I had never thought of Haig in this way, but now I'm wondering whether he exerted a much stronger influence on the conduct of his officers and men than I had imagined. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 14 October , 2011 Share Posted 14 October , 2011 The incidence of VD was significantly higher in 1914-15 than it was to be in 1916-17, expressed in terms of numbers per thousand of the BEF's ration strength who contracted the disease. The decrease coincides with Haig's assumption of command. Is it fanciful to see a connection here ? Armies have been profoundly influenced by the imprint of a commander's personality. Montgomery liked to promulgate this. Lee certainly imbued his warriors with a special quality, with religious matters assuming prominence. I had never thought of Haig in this way, but now I'm wondering whether he exerted a much stronger influence on the conduct of his officers and men than I had imagined. Phil (PJA) Rates of VD were higher amongst professional/semi-professional soldiers than citizen warriors, Phil? Hardly an unexpected "revelation" - indeed, it seems to me that the only way this would be surprising is if the rate were the other way round. As for your grandfather, the Chaplain - if your memory of him is correct, I find it strange that after serving on the Western Front he was only appalled enough to mention the incidence of VD amongst the men? Millions dying and being maimed for life, whole swathes of survivors being scarred emotionally and psychologically, yet, according to you, the incidence of VD is the only aspect he found to be worth a critical mention? Are you seriously telling us that this man of God was only appalled by the frequency of men "dipping their wicks" in "un-holy" places? Cheers-salesie. 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