towisuk Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Taken from Wikipedia.......... " Haig was created Earl Haig (with a subsidiary viscountcy and a subsidiary barony)[224] and received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament and a grant of £100,000 to enable him to live in the style appropriate to a senior peer (he had asked for £250,000).[225]" "he had asked for £250,000" I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is I would consider it a sign of a man divorced from reality considering the suffering thousands of his troops went through after the war. regards Tom
centurion Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Take a look at some of the negotiations over some of Wellington's titles. He actually turned down some continental offers as there was not the necessary income attached to allow him to fulfil the duties and obligations that went with them. Being an Earl required one to do things (not unlike minor royalty). As Earl Haig he made a lot of visits both in Britain and around the Empire promoting and setting up charities organisations, institutes and funding for the support of ex servicemen, all financed by him. His relatively early death is in part attributed to overwork in this capacity and the stress resulting.
paulgranger Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Possibly, but he was at the height of his popularity, and he had, in effect, won the war. He might, in the eyes of many at the time, been worth the money. Parliament didn't think so, possibly, and I have no evidence to show, because of Lloyd George's dislike of Haig. (This is a reply to the OP)
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is I would consider it a sign of a man divorced from reality considering the suffering thousands of his troops went through after the war. Which is why he worked tirelessly to alleviate suffering through ventures such as the (then) British Legion, and presumably the thousands who turned out for his funeral weren't there in the hope of a handout from the family of a man who did so much to alleviate the hardships they suffered, mostly thanks to the inability of the politicians who failed them rather more obviously than ever Haig did..
Jack Sheldon Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 It may or may not be true; I do not know. What is certain, however, is that he refused any honour or award for himself unless and until the question of veterans and widows' pensions had been satisfactorily resolved. If you ally that to his post war work for the British Legion and for the benefit of those who had served, I think that you would be hard-pressed to maintain the case that he had anything other than their best interests at heart. Jack
WilliamRev Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 I think that to a great extent we are still influenced by the views of Lloyd-George, that master-assasin of other men's reputations. People who know very little about the Great War think they know that Haig and various other generals were some kind of war-criminals, but I hope that the centenary of the war will cause more people to question these views, do plenty of research, and realise that nothing about WW1 is simple - everything is complicated and nuanced. The generals had a very steep learning-curve; with a new type of war and with new technologies it took them a while to learn their craft. Initially a Haig-hater, the more I learn about Haig, the more convinced I am that he ranks with Wellington and Marlborough as one of three greatest British generals. William
IanA Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Initially a Haig-hater, the more I learn about Haig, the more convinced I am that he ranks with Wellington and Marlborough as one of three greatest British generals. William Some might say 'above' Wellington and Marlborough but let that pass. Now compare the rewards, rank and property, and claim that Haig was greedy.
Chris_Baker Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 The Wikipedia page footnote 225 references page 400 of "Douglas Haig, 1861-1928" by Gerard de Groot (Unwin Hyman, 1988). In fact even de Groot does not make a claim that Haig asked for £250k. He notes that it was Sir Philip Sassoon who had the figure in mind when he discussed the pension and peerage issues with Lloyd George. De Groot got his information from pages 357-8 Robert Blake's "Private papers of Sir Douglas Haig" (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1952), quoting Sassoon's notes from the meeting. Blake quotes Sassoon saying that he made the suggestion to Lloyd George. So, Tom, you can stop worrying about whether Haig was "divorced from reality" in regard to this matter. The "he had asked for £250k" is the invention of an ill-researched or malicious editor of the Wikipedia page.
centurion Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 ill-researched or malicious editor of the Wikipedia page. So often one fears a tautology
towisuk Posted 23 May , 2014 Author Posted 23 May , 2014 Many thanks for clearing that up Chris, It just didn't sit right with me that someone who had been offered a huge amount of taxpayers money wanted more,. especially as thousands of the men who actually fought in the trenches etc lived with terrible injuries that blighted the rest of their lives. It still rankles though that the rewards that Haig received were similar to the "Bankers bonuses today", whilst hundreds of thousands of men lay under the sod in foreign lands. regards Tom
centurion Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Many thanks for clearing that up Chris, It just didn't sit right with me that someone who had been offered a huge amount of taxpayers money wanted more,. especially as thousands of the men who actually fought in the trenches etc lived with terrible injuries that blighted the rest of their lives. It still rankles though that the rewards that Haig received were similar to the "Bankers bonuses today", whilst hundreds of thousands of men lay under the sod in foreign lands. regards Tom As I pointed out much of Haig's "Bankers Bonus" was spent on establishing institutions that helped the many more who had survived and it is worth pointing out VERY FORCIBLY that Haig did not kill those men who died - that was ultimately down to a royal gentleman who lived very comfortably in Holland for the next 20 years.
towisuk Posted 23 May , 2014 Author Posted 23 May , 2014 As I pointed out much of Haig's "Bankers Bonus" was spent on establishing institutions that helped the many more who had survived and it is worth pointing out VERY FORCIBLY that Haig did not kill those men who died - that was ultimately down to a royal gentleman who lived very comfortably in Holland for the next 20 years. Maybe Haig did good works for the men that fought under him, I was just trying to find out whether he was dissatisfied by the money offered to him by "The Nation", Chris has answered that one above(#15) But there is still a huge difference to the way the "Nation" treated Haig to what the ordinary fighting men were due for the huge sacrifices they made.
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 And, had Haig not been in charge, it is, of course, entirely possible that considerably more men might have been lying under a foreign sod.
AlanCurragh Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 A fair bit of unpleasantness has been hidden from this thread - please, no more
towisuk Posted 23 May , 2014 Author Posted 23 May , 2014 And, had Haig not been in charge, it is, of course, entirely possible that considerably more men might have been lying under a foreign sod. Or with someone else in charge maybe less.... It's all conjecture of course..... Tom
T8HANTS Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 I wonder had the Germans won, would they have accused their victorious Generals of being "butchers and bunglers" in their post-war deliberations.
geraint Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 Does this forum allow one to disagree? Can I say, without being pilloried, that I still believe that Haig and other politicians and military leaders were responsible for the death of my family members and hundreds of thousands of other men of that generation. I've been obsessed by the Great War since I was 16 - interviewed veterans, chose a Great War topic for my BA honours course on it, did a post grad MA on it, and have researched and published local history broadsheets, lectured and conducted tours on it. Sorry, but I still think that the 1914-18 military hierarchy to be responsible for those deaths. Haig included.
CaroleHope Posted 23 May , 2014 Posted 23 May , 2014 I don't wish to pillory anyone. Politicians took us to war. Surely the military hierarchy carried out the job it was in existence to do with the resources at its disposal. What was the alternative? What was the alternative had the British politicians not taken us to war? Carole
geraint Posted 24 May , 2014 Posted 24 May , 2014 Diplomacy. Talk and discussion was (in 1914) and is today a way of avoiding pointless deaths.
Khaki Posted 24 May , 2014 Posted 24 May , 2014 War is a very messy business ,casualties cannot be avoided, there is no shortage of opportunities to apportion blame, but to what good purpose does it serve ? Leaders have to make decisions and give orders, soldiers have to follow those orders. I believe FM Haig did the best that he could as did FM French in 1914-15. From what I have read, the soldiers of the day had confidence in their commanders. khaki
kenneth505 Posted 24 May , 2014 Posted 24 May , 2014 it was Sir Philip Sassoon who had the figure in mind when he discussed the pension and peerage issues with Lloyd George. De Groot got his information from pages 357-8 Robert Blake's "Private papers of Sir Douglas Haig" (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1952), quoting Sassoon's notes from the meeting. Blake quotes Sassoon saying that he made the suggestion to Lloyd George. I could imagine that the govt. contacted Haig's staff, Sassoon if this quote is correct, and discussed what the parameters would need to be. Accepting the responsibilities that are inherent with the honors requires forethought and an awareness of the expenses that are sure to follow. Sadly either sum is miniscule compared to the enormous wastage the war squandered.
towisuk Posted 24 May , 2014 Author Posted 24 May , 2014 Does this forum allow one to disagree? Can I say, without being pilloried, that I still believe that Haig and other politicians and military leaders were responsible for the death of my family members and hundreds of thousands of other men of that generation. I've been obsessed by the Great War since I was 16 - interviewed veterans, chose a Great War topic for my BA honours course on it, did a post grad MA on it, and have researched and published local history broadsheets, lectured and conducted tours on it. Sorry, but I still think that the 1914-18 military hierarchy to be responsible for those deaths. Haig included. It's nice to see that some fellow forum members can see outside of the accepted propagated version that Haig deserved his post war rewards. I keep wondering about the men who often stood in water in trenches for days with shells and bullets flying overhead.....what was their value to this country.....maybe they received a generous pension...I will admit I don't know what the remuneration was or how it was arrived at, but I'm willing to bet their contribution was not valued in monetary terms anywhere near as much as their commanders... regards Tom
nigelcave Posted 24 May , 2014 Posted 24 May , 2014 Quite. However the problem with the line of argument here is that we are not comparing like with like, 1918/19 and 2014. For example, Haig was probably a vital part (but certainly not the only one) of putting together a strong enough pressure group of veterans to be able to push for proper support for those who had suffered in the war - soldiers and widows - even if it was not wildly successful: ie the British Legion. Whatever one says about Haig, from what I know of the subject he was the only war time major C-in-C of any of the armies who spent the rest of his life working for the interests of those who served; one can be as cynical or as critical about this as one likes, but at least no one can say that he did nothing but sit back on his monetary grant and enjoy a quiet life. It is worth bearing in mind that this was an age, for example, when MPs had only just begun to be paid again after centuries when they were not, where the welfare state was in its infancy - just about in the pram, so to speak; where compensation for anything suffered in the line of work was practically non existent and so it goes on. Of course people are entitled to views about Haig and the other generals and equally emotional reactions are, of course, entirely understandable. However, this does not necessarily make for particularly good history. The fact is that monetary grants to commanders was a norm - if you had a title and a seat in the Lords, for example, you were expected to do your bit, which would include a 'suitable' place in London as well as the 'house in the country', where there were other obligations. It all seems so dated now, but then ...
Chris_Baker Posted 24 May , 2014 Posted 24 May , 2014 I still believe that Haig and other politicians and military leaders were responsible for the death of my family members and hundreds of thousands of other men of that generation. I still think that the 1914-18 military hierarchy to be responsible for those deaths. The military forces are the instrument of foreign policy. They are sent to do a job. There is only one thing with overall responsibility for deaths in war and that is the political foreign policy that commits men to fight. What, in all seriousness, do you expect the military commanders to have done once they had been ordered to the fight? Win a bloodless victory? How? By killing lots of enemy without incurring any casualties? Or by not fighting? You can argue all you like about how efficiently or effectively the command carried out its instructions, and whether that contributed to more deaths that might otherwise have been incurred, but in a war of continental scale it was 100% inevitable that there would be many deaths regardless of what the military command did if it was to carry out its instructions. That seems to me an irreducible minimum that can only be placed at the feet of politicians. And then we must ask: which politicians?
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